Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C

Posted by: paul

Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 08/15/11 03:07 AM

http://www.niwa.co.nz/node/101210

right now the temp is apx 2 C with a South wind at
49 mph at Invercargill, New Zealand

that wind might be north in Australia.


2 inch thick foam , really could come in handy in a few years or sooner.

http://www.lowes.com/pd_15357-23946-7892...&facetInfo=

I had posted a year or so ago that I thought Austrailia would be getting artic type weather in a few years or so , it is now 55 F in Mount Gambier.

I suspect that in a year or so that artic type weather might very well be arriving.

say im crazy if you like , just get prepared.






Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 08/15/11 03:44 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
I had posted a year or so ago that I thought Austrailia would be getting artic type weather in a few years or so , it is now 55 F in Mount Gambier.


55F isn't arctic type weather. So your prediction was wrong. Unless "in a few years" means "any time in the future". In that case it's not a prediction, so it's meaningless.

Global warming scientists have been saying we should get colder cold and hotter hot eventually. But not sure when or how severe that's supposed to be.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 08/15/11 07:26 PM

a "Few" means more than one , my thoughts were that because the ice is melting on top of the antartic the land underneath antartica would be depressurising , causing a cooling effect.

did Australia have any record cold temperatures in 2010 or in 2011?

heres one for 2009

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/29/new-australian-continent-wide-low-record-set-for-april/

Quote:
A new Australian record was set early this morning, a temperature of minus 13 degrees, at Charlotte Pass on the Snowy Mountains.

This is the lowest temperature recorded anywhere in Australia in April and is 13 below the average. Nearby at Perisher it dipped to minus 11 degrees and at the top of Thredbo it dipped to minus 10.

Across the border, on the Victorian Alps April records were broken at Mt Hotham where it chilled to minus eight degrees and Mt Buller and Falls Creek where it got as low as minus seven.


The Charlotte Pass low temperature record above surpassed the below Charlotte Pass low temperature record set in 1994 in
2011

Australia 9.4 C Charlotte Pass, NSW 5758 29 Jun 1994

http://www.weatherexplained.com/Vol-1/Record-Setting-Weather.html#ixzz1V7ygX2a6

and Smack dab in the middle of OZ Alice Springs 6.3 C in july 2010

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...-on-record.html

Quote:
The town, which is used to sweltering in the desert heat, is blanketed by a thick band of cloud, which has been blamed for pushing temperatures down. The mercury rose to just 43.3F (6.3C) by the late afternoon, but the record cannot be confirmed until 9am on Wednesday.
Cold weather is a novelty in Alice Springs, Australia. The previous coldest day was in August 1966 when the maximum temperature reached just 44.6F (7C).
The chilly weather has caused havoc in the town, with charities appealing for donations of blankets and dry bedding for people living rough.
Many Aborigines sleep on the streets or in town camps around Alice Springs, and the cold was making life even more miserable.
Margaret Reilly, social services manager at Tangentyere Council, said some people were taking shelter under a bridge over the Todd River.

"There's no firewood to be had in Alice Springs and there's no blankets to be had in Alice Springs," she said.
"People are in very, very damp, very, very cold situations at the moment.
"We've actually had a family whose tin shed has collapsed and we're trying to find a solution for them.
"So it's pretty desperate."


thus my "just get prepared"

Quote:
So your prediction was wrong


I wouldnt call it a prediction , a warning would be more of what I had in mind , and I based my warning on physics , something that actually could occur.







Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 08/16/11 05:01 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14531214

Quote:
A cold blast from the Antarctic has brought snow to parts of New Zealand for the first time in almost 40 years.

Wellington airport was forced to close and - according to local media - access to Christchurch's quake-damaged red zone has been blocked.

More snowfalls are expected and the country's Civil Defence is warning people to be prepared.


looking at the clouds and the wind using google earth
gives me the opinion that this could have hit Australia
and that it is entirely possible that this type of weather will hit Australia in the following few years.

New Zealand is almost as close to the Antartic as Australia is and this particular weather is slowly moving towards Australia.

it wouldnt be a bad idea for Australia to put up a advanced warning system of buoys between the Antartic and Australia to measure the temperatures and wind speed , if they dont already have one.






Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 08/17/11 01:39 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
I wouldnt call it a prediction , a warning would be more of what I had in mind , and I based my warning on physics , something that actually could occur.


But you don't believe in physics. Seems you invoke its name when you want it to support you, and you critisize it when it doesn't support you.

How about honesty? You didn't do any physics, you just imagined that if the ice melts, the pressure drops, and somehow that causes coldness. How much? You don't know, so you didn't do any physics, you just guessed.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 08/17/11 01:52 AM

Quote:
if the ice melts, the pressure drops, and somehow that causes coldness.


dropping pressure actually causes heat!
when your talking about solid rock being able to melt into magma because of reduced pressure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igneous_rock

Quote:
Typically, the melting is caused by one or more of three processes: an increase in temperature, a decrease in pressure, or a change in composition.



it is after pressure is removed from everything underneath the melting ice where stuff rubs against the core , or the decreased friction of the rubbing that causes the coolness.

weve already been through this before , theres no reason to do it again , but your welcome to try to understand it if you like , if not its also ok.

you dont have to believe anything I say.
and
I dont have to believe anything you say.

Quote:
How about honesty?


comming from you that is a very strange question.







Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 08/17/11 05:05 PM

I believe you can put your freezers outside in your yard today in mount buller and disconnect the electricity supply.

its 32 F 0 C , I was right it was heading to OZ.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 08/20/11 01:09 AM

Originally Posted By: paul

Quote:
How about honesty?


comming from you that is a very strange question.

Have I ever been dishonest? Even once?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 08/20/11 02:59 AM



even once?

OK , how about when you.

added up forces using almost all of them?

------------------------------------------------
post #35130

Move the spaces in the list:


+1 accelerator.
-1 1st turn.

+1 2nd turn.
+2 accelerator.
-3 1st turn.

+3 2nd turn.
+3 accelerator.
-6 1st turn.

+6 2nd turn.
+4 accelerator.
-10 1st turn.


See how each group of 3 forces adds to zero? I've continued your pattern of the accelator's force increasing by 1 each cycle. But you can do that differently if you want, and they still add to zero.

-------------------------------------------------

I can do that also.
only I will use all the forces beginning with the accelerator
and not leaving a turn out as you did.

+1 accelerator.
-1 1st turn.
+1 2nd turn.
the pipe has +1 momentum

+2 accelerator.
-3 1st turn.
+3 2nd turn.
the pipe has +3 momentum

+3 accelerator.
-6 1st turn.
+6 2nd turn.
the pipe has +6 momentum

+4 accelerator.
-10 1st turn.
+10 second turn.
the pipe has +10 momentum

all the turns above cancel each other out.
and the pipe has +10 momentum.

but by being dishonest you can make it look as if you end up with zero.

I must say that was very republican of you !

Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/02/11 12:24 PM

Originally Posted By: paul

+1 accelerator.
-1 1st turn.

+1 2nd turn.
+2 accelerator.
-3 1st turn.


They do add to zero. But it doesn't matter. We established that the idea won't work. You repeatedly claimed that it would. Those were lies.

Don't you wonder why you never implemented any of your ideas? I keep telling you you'll get a Nobel prize. And you will. But you aren't interested in improving the body of scientific knowledge. You just want to fool yourself. Actually trying it will show you it doesn't work and you can't handle such a blow to your ego - even if you never tell anyone, you'll feel like a failure. Better to imagine you're right and keep the truth buried from your sight.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/02/11 05:03 PM

Quote:
They do add to zero. But it doesn't matter. We established that the idea won't work. You repeatedly claimed that it would. Those were lies.


you used 5 stages to calculate a 6 stage event.

Quote:

+1 accelerator.
-1 1st turn.

+1 2nd turn.
+2 accelerator.
-3 1st turn.


allow me to fix that for you.

+1 accelerator. = +1
-1 1st turn. = 0
+1 2nd turn. = +1

(+1) + (-1) + (+1) = +1

+2 accelerator. = +3 , +1 from 1st cycle , +2 from accelerator
-3 1st turn. = 0
+3 2nd turn = +3

result = +3 momentum



1)
Quote:
They do add to zero


no they dont - another lie for you.

2)
Quote:
We established that the idea won't work


we never established anything because of your dishonesty.

in an event that has 3 stages for 1 complete event.

you must include all 3 stages and you didnt.

you were adding incomplete events with only 2 stages then adding them together to get zero.

when you make a spill like the one below.

Quote:
Don't you wonder why you never implemented any of your ideas? I keep telling you you'll get a Nobel prize. And you will. But you aren't interested in improving the body of scientific knowledge. You just want to fool yourself. Actually trying it will show you it doesn't work and you can't handle such a blow to your ego - even if you never tell anyone, you'll feel like a failure. Better to imagine you're right and keep the truth buried from your sight.


it only shows that you know Im right and your wrong as usual.
besides I watch fox news network sometimes just to find out what the dishonest politicians are scheming to do.

so Im aware of your type of dishonesty thanks to the republidiots dishonesty.

your mentality on this is as follows.

you work for 1 week and get paid $100.00
you go to the store and buy $100.00 of groceries.
you leave the store and determine that you did no work last week because you have no money.
even though you have $100.00 worth of groceries.









Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/03/11 07:06 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
you used 5 stages to calculate a 6 stage event.

It's irrelevant. Those number don't even apply anyway. I explained that in that thread. But you weren't trying to understand your own idea.

If the accelerator imparts +1 unit of impulse, then the 1st turn will give -2, not -1. I might have made a mistake when I wrote the numbers. Either way we did establish that it won't work. If you don't believe me then show it. You never did.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/03/11 04:09 PM

All your doing is trying to confuse the facts.
you know as well as I do that the mass will not and cannot impart more momentum than it has due to its movement to the pipe itself.

Quote:
if the accelerator imparts +1 unit of impulse, then the 1st turn will give -2, not -1.


Im talking about the pipes momentum.
not the amount of change in the momentum of the mass as you are.

the mass will still have the same speed as it leaves the first turn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2mdAvdPhT4

as the mass passes through the 1st turn , the mass will impart only -1 to the pipe , but the change in the masses momentum would not be -2 as you say.

the mass momentum would go from a (-1) to zero then to a (+1)

however you cannot use the change in the mass momentum to determine any change in the pipe speed.

the mass with a +1 momentum then passes through the 2nd turn and imparts a +1 momentum to the pipe.

thus the pipe has +1 momentum after the 1st cycle of 3 events.

1) acceleration = -1 mass momentum, +1 pipe momentum action , reaction
2) 1st turn = +1 mass momentum, -1 pipe momentum action , reaction
3) 2nd turn = -1 mass momentum, +1 pipe momentum action , reaction

result = +1 pipe momentum

1) acceleration = -1 mass momentum, +2 pipe momentum action , reaction
2) 1st turn = +2 mass momentum, -2 pipe momentum action , reaction
3) 2nd turn = -2 mass momentum, +2 pipe momentum action , reaction

result = +2 pipe momentum

etc . etc , etc

this is what you claim you were never capable of understanding so we never did get past this point.

you would need to have several of these timed to achieve constant forward movement.

but you were only interested in stalling the discussion because I can tell your not that stupid.

the cars and motorcycles in the below video are driving around in a circle inside a large barrel , the vehicles are undergoing a constant change in momentum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZOekFFSoWI&feature=related

but you wouldnt use the change in momentum to determine the speed at which the vehicles need to travel in the barrell to keep from falling.

change in momentum is like change in direction.
you are trying to lead the discussion in your favor using change in momentum of the mass which is very misleading dishonest on your part.

we should not be using change in momentum of the mass at all when determining the movement of the pipe itself.





Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/03/11 08:12 PM

Quote:
If the accelerator imparts +1 unit of impulse, then the 1st turn will give -2, not -1


kallog the mass will not be slowed down in the turn.

if you believe that the mass will impart a -2 to the pipe using only a +1 , and the mass still has any movement at all when it exits the 1st turn then wouldnt that be free energy.

so are you really correct?

Just Think!!!
you pay to accelerate the mass to -1 then
you could get -2 as the mass passes through the 1st turn
and then get a +2 as the mass passes through the 2nd turn
then you could get a -1 after the mass leaves the 2nd turn
WOW thats a 5-1 energy repayment plan.

LOL

which has me wondering if the mass will impart any force to the pipe at all as it passes through the turns?

but it has to !!!
so the only way it couldn't be free energy would be if the
mass suddenly stops half way through the 1st turn and that just wouldn't happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2mdAvdPhT4

FREE ENERGY FOLKS!!!











Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/07/11 02:15 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
kallog the mass will not be slowed down in the turn.

Correct.

Quote:

if you believe that the mass will impart a -2 to the pipe using only a +1 , and the mass still has any movement at


Tell me which step(s) you disagree with:

1) -2 is a measure of the momentum added to the pipe. We can call it -2Ns

2) You can't get free momentum.

3) The system (mass and pipe together) started with zero momentum ...

4) ... so it must maintain zero momentum all the time.

5) After the 1st acceleration the mass has momentum of -1Ns and the pipe has +1Ns

6) After the 1st turn .. I better not finish this until the first steps are confirmed.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/07/11 05:41 PM

Quote:
Tell me which step(s) you disagree with:

1) -2 is a measure of the momentum added to the pipe. We can call it -2Ns

2) You can't get free momentum.

3) The system (mass and pipe together) started with zero momentum ...

4) ... so it must maintain zero momentum all the time.

5) After the 1st acceleration the mass has momentum of -1Ns and the pipe has +1Ns

6) After the 1st turn .. I better not finish this until the first steps are confirmed.


1
4
5

-2 was what you wanted to use instead of actual momentum.

in this design / case you cant get free momentum.

the pipe cant maintain zero momentum because the
mass is being accelerated inside the pipe

the mass is pressing against the pipe , and
the pipe is pressing back against the mass
the mass has nothing to press against that would keep the mass from moving or gaining momentum and
the pipe has nothing to press against that is outside the pipe that would keep the pipe from moving or gaining momentum.

the pipe is 500 ft long , the mass accelerates for ( 500 ft ) thus for a longer time than it takes for the mass just to pass through the 1st turn.

so the pipe will move a certain distance and then be brought to a quick stop as the mass passes through the 1st turn.

but the pipe would move.
so zero pipe momentum is not possible.

this is why you would need say 20 masses being accelerated all the time so that their collective push against the pipe in one direction would counteract and overwhelm the much smaller push in the opposite direction of the single mass that is passing through the 1st turn.





Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/07/11 08:35 PM

Quote:

1) -2 is a measure of the momentum added to the pipe. We can call it -2Ns

4) ... so it must maintain zero momentum all the time.

5) After the 1st acceleration the mass has momentum of -1Ns and the pipe has +1Ns


1)
Quote:

-2 was what you wanted to use instead of actual momentum.

Let's change 1) to:
1) The numbers (ignoring their values for now) represent the momentum added to the pipe. We can use the units Ns

4)
Quote:

the pipe cant maintain zero momentum because the
mass is being accelerated inside the pipe

Correct, but we don't need to enforce zero momentum on the pipe, only on the complete system. That means the sum of the momentum of every part (mass and pipe) must equal zero.

Do you agree with 4 now after this clarification?


5) Why not? What values would you use?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/08/11 02:00 AM

Quote:
Do you agree with 4 now after this clarification?

no, because for this discussion the mass is never stopped.

so it always has momentum.

using only 1 set of
1 mass
1 pipe

1 accelerator
1 1st turn
1 2nd turn

the pipe will stop momentarily as the mass passes through the 1st turn and as the mass free floats to the 2nd turn, but the mass will keep moving on to the 2nd turn.
at the 2nd turn the pipe will again move in the same direction.
then the accelerator will accelerate the mass and the pipe will move even further.
then when the mass passes through the 1st turn again the pipe will stop again.

etc.etc.etc.etc.

but the 1 set can be used to discuss its validity.

once we can agree on the 1 set then its not much after that to add enought sets to maintain motion in a certain direction.

not have it start moving travel a distance then stop quickly.
where the pipe only travels a few meters each cycle of 3 events.

the 500 ft lenght is causing me to mess up.
lets use 1000 meters for the pipe distance.
we were using 100 kg for the mass that is accelerated.

and I think the turns were 40 meters , Im not sure.

I told you that the program I made to do the calculations was lost , so I guess I will make another.

does a 1000 meter pipe length seem like a good round number.





Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/08/11 10:58 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
Do you agree with 4 now after this clarification?

no, because for this discussion the mass is never stopped.


We'll never get anywhere without proper adding of momentum.

Consider another system:
2 identical coins sliding towards each other on a frictionless table top.
Coin 1 has momentum of 1Ns
Coin 2 has momentum of -1Ns


The total momentum of the system is the sum of the two momentums: 1 + -1 = 0

Then the collide and bounce off with some loss.
The total momenum of the system is the sum of the two momentums: -0.5 + 0.5 = 0

Starting again, they collide and both stick together because they have glue on their edges.
The total mometnum of the system is the sum of the two momentums: 0 + 0 = 0

Whatever happens, the total momentum is always 0 because it started as 0 - as long as they don't interact with other things (outside the system) like friction against the table or somebody touching them.


That's like ours except the pipe and mass needn't have the same mass as each other.


Quote:

does a 1000 meter pipe length seem like a good round number.

Yea OK. I hoped to avoid too many numbers because they're so time consuming to work with. It doesn't really matter what the dimensions are. Either it always works or it never works.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/08/11 02:16 PM

Quote:
We'll never get anywhere without proper adding of momentum.


Quote:
Originally Posted By: paul
kallog the mass will not be slowed down in the turn.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Correct.


kallog , you agreed that the mass would not loose its speed
as it passes through the 1st turn.
so it would free float to the 2nd turn.
and then it would pass through the 2nd turn.
then enter the accelerator again.

in order for the mass momentum to be zero it must stop.
in order for the total system momentum to be zero the mass cannot be moving.

I ask you WHERE DOES THE MASS STOP?

suppose we consider a spacecraft in space that expends a
burst of energy out its rear end that propels the craft to
a speed of 1000 kph.

the fuel runs out and the spacecraft is not accelerating anymore and nobody is on it , but it just travels forever at 1000kph.

how would you add momentum then.

0+0=0 ?

would the total momentum of the spacecraft be zero even though the spacecraft is moving at 1000 kph?

how do you define momentum?






Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/09/11 02:22 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
I ask you WHERE DOES THE MASS STOP?

It doesn't stop. This is why I said adding momentum is important. -1 + 1 = 0. Total is 0, but each part is non-zero.




Quote:

how would you add momentum then.

0+0=0 ?

would the total momentum of the spacecraft be zero even though the spacecraft is moving at 1000 kph?


You have to include the momentum of the exhaust. You have to include everything that interacts with the spacecraft in order to ensure momentum is conserved.

momentum_exhaust + momentum_craft = 0

That's not 0 + 0 = 0. I don't know why you're making ridiculous statements like the momentum of the spacecraft is zero. It's clearly moving so it's non-zero.

That's true throughout the acceleration and continues to be true while it's coasting.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/09/11 02:36 AM

I think I'm saying things you don't understand. Can you answer these questions to check?


What do I mean by "system"

What does "total" mean in "total momentum"

What is the meaning of a negative momentum?

If object A has momentum pA and object B has momentum pB, what is the total momentum of the system comprising A and B?
a) pA + pB
b) pA - pB
b) |pA| + |pB|
c) 0
d) Requires more information to answer
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/09/11 02:44 PM

Quote:
It's clearly moving so it's non-zero


correct.

Quote:
That's not 0 + 0 = 0. I don't know why you're making ridiculous statements like the momentum of the spacecraft is zero. It's clearly moving so it's non-zero.


simply because in the earlier attempts to explain that reactionless propulsion is possible you and others on this forum were always saying that the pipe would either never move at all , or that it would just wobble back and forth and never really go anywhere , thats why.

if you want me to understand the way your thinking then you should answer the questions below yourself.

Quote:
What do I mean by "system"

What does "total" mean in "total momentum"

What is the meaning of a negative momentum?

If object A has momentum pA and object B has momentum pB, what is the total momentum of the system comprising A and B?
a) pA + pB
b) pA - pB
b) |pA| + |pB|
c) 0
d) Requires more information to answer


then I will know.

but I do know that total momentum means all 3 stages in a 3 stage event.

not just a few hand picked stages to suit you.

like in the first 3 stages in the first event.

+1 pipe due to the -1 mass acceleration
-1 pipe due to the mass reverse in direction in the 1st turn
+1 pipe due to the mass reverse in direction in the 2nd turn

simple addition shows that the pipe would have momentum.

(+1) + (-1) + (+1) = +1 pipe momentum.

you have never agreed that the total momentum of the first three stage event would result in the pipe having momentum just like the spacecraft after it runs out of fuel.







Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/09/11 03:41 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
if you want me to understand the way your thinking then you should answer the questions below yourself.


What do I mean by "system"
All the things that interact with the pipe, including the pipe itself, the accelerator, the mass, the turns, etc. Most of them are fixed together so I treat it as just two parts - the mass and the pipe (with all its attachments).


What does "total" mean in "total momentum"
The sum of the momentums of all the parts in the system at some specified point in time.

What is the meaning of a negative momentum?
Moving in the opposite direction to what something with positive momentum would be.

If object A has momentum pA and object B has momentum pB, what is the total momentum of the system comprising A and B?
a) pA + pB



Quote:

but I do know that total momentum means all 3 stages in a 3 stage event.

Let's not call it total when adding changes in momentum through time. If you're thinking it's this and I'm thinking it's all at one time, then we can't communicate.

Forget that old thread where I did that - I already said I'd made a mistake with the numbers, so the whole list of additions is meaningless.

Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/09/11 03:47 PM

Now those things are clarified lets analyze the system again:

1) Before it starts the mass is stationary and the pipe is stationary:
pMass = 0
pPipe = 0
pTotal = 0 + 0 = 0

2) After the first acceleration the mass is moving and the pipe is moving in the opposite direction:
pMass = -1
pPipe = 1
pTotal = -1 + 1 = 0

3) After the first turn the mass has the same speed but opposite direction.
pMass = 1
pPipe = ?
pTotal = 1 + ? = ?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/09/11 04:38 PM

3) After the first turn the mass has the same speed but opposite direction.
pMass = 1
pPipe = 0
pTotal = 1 + 0 = 1

the mass presents its entire momentum to the pipe as it passes through the 1st turn.
this will cause the pipe to stop just as if the mass would stop the pipe if it were suddenly stopped by the pipe as it left the accelerator.

the pipe is not moving but the mass inside the pipe is.
and I will continue to the 2nd turn

4) After the second turn the mass has the same speed but opposite direction.
pMass = -1
pPipe = 1
pTotal = -1 + 1 = 0

the pipe is now moving and the mass is still moving.


the first 3 stage event is now complete.

the pipe is moving and the mass is moving but in opposite directions.

the pipe has a momentum of 1 in one direction
the mass has a momentum of 1 in the opposite direction.

action / reaction

to continue to the next stage in the 2nd event.

the mass will be accelerated from -1 to -2
the pipe will accelerate from 1 to 2

moving on to after the 2nd turn in the second event of 3 stages.

you would have paid the energy cost to accelerate the mass to -2 and in turn the pipe would have accelerated to 2

action / reaction

but the mass is still moving and has a momentum of -2 before it enters the accelerator in the 3rd event of 3 stages.

you paid for 2
you now have 4

the 3rd event of 3 stages

you paid for 3
you now have 6

so on and so on...it doubles every event of 3 stages.

so in effect you can generate all the energy you paid by capturing the momentum of the mass after the mass leaves the 1st turn and not stop the spaceship or before it enters the accelerator and stop the spaceship.

you could let the spaceship just coast in space forever
and still have enought energy stored up to use to stop the spaceship.

your trip did not cost any energy and your spaceship has traveled a distance.

I told you I was right.





Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/10/11 03:24 AM

Quote:

2) After the first acceleration the mass is moving and the pipe is moving in the opposite direction:
pMass = -1
pPipe = 1
pTotal = -1 + 1 = 0


Originally Posted By: paul
3) After the first turn the mass has the same speed but opposite direction.
pMass = 1
pPipe = 0
pTotal = 1 + 0 = 1

the mass presents its entire momentum to the pipe as it passes through the 1st turn.
this will cause the pipe to stop just as if the mass would stop the pipe if it were suddenly stopped by the pipe as it left the accelerator.


You say the mass's momentum changes by +2 units and the pipe's momentum changes by -1 units. Why the discrepancy?

Whatever momentum the mass transfers to the pipe, the pipe has to receive from the mass. If the mass gains 2, the pipe has to lose 2.


Another way to look at it:
Imagine the pipe and mass both have the same mass.
In step 2 it's effectively two identical objects travelling towards each other at the same speed.
You say that when they hit and bounce off, _one_ of them stops, while the other changes direction. How do you know which one stops and which one reverses?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/10/11 08:26 PM

Quote:
You say the mass's momentum changes by +2 units and the pipe's momentum changes by -1 units. Why the discrepancy?


well if you are speaking about a mass that is moving in one direction , then it changes its direction to the opposite direction then yes it does change by 2 units but not by +2 units.

while the mass travels through the 1st turn its momentum
changes from -1 to 0 through the 1st half of the 1st turn.
then as the mass travels from half way through the 1st turn until it finishes passing through the 1st turn the mass
changes its momentum from 0 to +1

its momentum has changed 2 units but it never did achieve
a +2 momentum change in either the (-) or the (+) direction.

Quote:
Whatever momentum the mass transfers to the pipe, the pipe has to receive from the mass. If the mass gains 2, the pipe has to lose 2.


Whatever momentum the mass transfers to the pipe, the pipe has to receive from the mass. TRUE

If the mass gains 2, the pipe has to lose 2.
you mean if the accelerator causes the mass to gain 2 in one direction the pipe has to gain 2 in the opposite direction.

To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2mdAvdPhT4

when the ball that is attached to the string in the pendulum example in the above MIT video is dropped the ball transfers its momentum to the table and the ball would not just stop when it is half way through the pendulum.

No it wouldnt . the ball does not stop it keeps going and the only reasons the ball does not go as high as the position it was dropped from is gravity and a small amount of air resistance.

so the ball on the string pulls on the string.
the pole that the string is attached to pushes downward on the table and this push is a force caused by the ball swinging on the string.

just like the mass passing through the 1st turn.
except the pipe is moving, so as the mass passes through the 1st turn the mass applies a force to the pipe, and this force stops the pipe.

if the pipe were not moving , and the mass passed through the 1st turn , then the pipe would move in the (-) direction and the mass would stop.

because the pipe would not have momentum and the mass would have momentum , the mass would transfer its momentum to the pipe.

just like a pool ball transfers all of its momentum to another pool ball if struck at just the correct angle.

Quote:
Another way to look at it:
Imagine the pipe and mass both have the same mass.
In step 2 it's effectively two identical objects travelling towards each other at the same speed.


No the mass and the pipe have different speeds.
wasnt the mass 100kg and the pipe 1000kg before I changed the pipe length to 1000 meters vs 500 ft.

so the force that is applied to accelerate the 100kg mass could not accelerate the 1000kg pipe and the 100kg mass to the same speed.

Quote:
You say that when they hit and bounce off, _one_ of them stops


yes the one that has +1 momentum stops , its the pipe , it stops.
it stops because of the -1 momentum of the mass.

the mass continues moving because the pipe is also transfering momentum to the mass while the mass is transfering momentum to the pipe.

no other energy is expended durring the collision such as bending the pipe or the mass or in general deforming the mass or the pipe.

now remember this is in space , so just like the spacecraft that exhaust its thrust the mass would keep going forever if it didnt encounter the 1st turn.

but its a little different because the acceleration of the mass gave the pipe the exact same amount of momentum that the mass recieved , so before they collide the two had 2 units of momentum between them.

so we started with 2 units , -1 mass and +1 pipe.
durring the collision we used up 1 unit stopping the pipe
and after the 1st turn we end up with 1 unit , which is the +1 momentum of the mass.

so the 2nd turn should stop the mass as it passes through the 2nd turn.

this means that the accelerator may have to extend into the 2nd turn just a little so that the mass will enter the accelerator.

we still have the following after the completion of the first 3 stage event.

1) acceleration +1 pipe , -1 mass
2) 1st turn 0 pipe , +1 mass
3) 2nd turn +1 pipe , 0 mass

the pipe moves durring the acceleration , then stops
then the pipe moves durring the 2nd turn.

the pipe is moving and the mass is not.


theres really nothing odd about that.

if your worried about the free energy part of it just think about this.

if all you have is a straight rail gun in space.

you shoot a 100kg mass from a 100kg rail gun
what do you have?

you have 2 masses with the same exact momentum.
one mass goes in one direction the other mass goes in the opposite direction.

now if that rail gun were inside a long pipe and the mass and rail gun strike the ends of that pipe at the same time you would have 2 impacts that would total to twice the amount of energy you supplied to fire the rail gun.

you could capture that energy and that would be free energy
because you got back the energy you expended and you also got back an equal amount of energy to boot.

To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.

but thats not how that works.
when the rail gun pushes against the mass 1/2 the energy is expended to push the mass and 1/2 the energy is expended to push the rail gun.

so in reality you could only capture the same amount of energy that you expended.

but both masses moved a distance and it cost you nothing.

that is still free energy because you moved things a distance and it cost you nothing.



















Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/11/11 01:22 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
well if you are speaking about a mass that is moving in one direction , then it changes its direction to the opposite direction then yes it does change by 2 units but not by +2 units.

I agree with the first part. But obviously 2 = +2 so the last line is nonsense.


Quote:

while the mass travels through the 1st turn its momentum
changes from -1 to 0 through the 1st half of the 1st turn.
then as the mass travels from half way through the 1st turn until it finishes passing through the 1st turn the mass
changes its momentum from 0 to +1

I agree

Quote:

its momentum has changed 2 units but it never did achieve
a +2 momentum change in either the (-) or the (+) direction.

Internal contradiction. Please use common terminology or different words so I know what you're trying to say. "momentum changed 2 units" is the same as "achieved a +2 momentum change" to me. Do you mean it never achieves a momentum of +2?



Quote:
Whatever momentum the mass transfers to the pipe, the pipe has to receive from the mass. TRUE

[quote]
If the mass gains 2, the pipe has to lose 2.
you mean if the accelerator causes the mass to gain 2 in one direction the pipe has to gain 2 in the opposite direction.

Yes. However we decided our accelerator only causes the mass to gain 1 in the negative direction (ie lose 1).


So you seem to agree with me but your conclusion is different. I say:

2)
After the 1st turn:
The mass has momentum +1
The pipe has momentum -1
The total momentum is +1 + -1 = 0

You say:

2)
After the 1st turn:
The mass has momentum +1
The pipe has momentum 0
The total momentum is +1 + 0 = +1


The mass gains 2, the pipe loses 1. Disagrees with what you said above.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/11/11 02:05 AM

Quote:
Yes. However we decided our accelerator only causes the mass to gain 1 in the negative direction (ie lose 1).


I dont consider a gain in momentum a loss in momentum.
I only consider that the mass gains momentum as it is pushed down the accelerator.

it might accelerate in the negative direction in respect to the entire system but it is not a loss of momentum.


Quote:
After the 1st turn:
The mass has momentum +1
The pipe has momentum -1
The total momentum is +1 + -1 = 0


well when I use momentum I mean momentum.
something that is not moving has no momentum.

it appears that when you use momentum you cant decide what momentum is.

what does the sentence below mean to you?

The pipe has momentum -1

knowing that a momentum of -1 would be saying that the pipe is moving in the negative direction with a magnatude of 1

from what I can tell AFTER the 1st turn the pipe would stop.

are you saying that the pipe would not stop after the 1st turn?


Quote:
while the mass travels through the 1st turn its momentum
changes from -1 to 0 through the 1st half of the 1st turn.
then as the mass travels from half way through the 1st turn until it finishes passing through the 1st turn the mass
changes its momentum from 0 to +1

I agree


its obvious that you agree that the mass will pass through the 1st turn , so if you are trying to say that the pipe will go from a +1 momentum to a -1 momentum then you are just wrong.

and what I mean above is that you would be saying that the pipe itself would go from a
+ direction with a magnatude of 1
to a
- direction with a magnatude of 1

a mass with a momentum of 1 cannot create 2 momentums
that are equal in magnatude in a collision.

what is happening in the 1st turn is that as the mass passes through the 1st half of the 1st turn the mass transfers 1/2 of its momentum force to the pipe.
and
as the mass passes through the 2nd half of the 1st turn the mass transfers the other 1/2 of its momentum force to the pipe.


and
as the mass passes through the 1st half of the 1st turn the pipe transfers 1/2 of its momentum force to the mass.
and
as the mass passes through the 2nd half of the 1st turn the pipe transfers the other 1/2 of its momentum force to the mass.

in a collision momentums are transfered from one body to the other.

so the pipe stops.

it may even be that the mass doubles its momentum as it passes through the 1st turn.

and the mass would then have a +2 momentum.

this way momentum would be conserved.

because it started with 2 units of momentum only in different directions and because the pipe is moving towards the mass the pipe may accelerate the mass even further as the pipe stops.

yes I think that is what would happen.

then the mass free floats to the 2nd turn.

then the mass with a + direction and a magnatude of 2
passes through the 2nd turn and causes the pipe to have a momentum in the + direction and 1/2 of the mass momentum is transfered into the pipe and the mass decelerates through
the 2nd turn and ends up with a -1 momentum.

this makes much more sense.




Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/11/11 04:15 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
I only consider that the mass gains momentum as it is pushed down the accelerator.

When I say "gains momentum" I mean "momentum becomes more positive". I'll try to use that wording from now on.


Quote:

what does the sentence below mean to you?

The pipe has momentum -1

knowing that a momentum of -1 would be saying that the pipe is moving in the negative direction with a magnatude of 1

Yes.

Quote:

are you saying that the pipe would not stop after the 1st turn?

Yes

Quote:
so if you are trying to say that the pipe will go from a +1 momentum to a -1 momentum

Yes




Quote:

what is happening in the 1st turn is that as the mass pipe
...
transfers the other 1/2 of its momentum force to the mass.

Be precise. There's no such thing as "momentum force". This kind of detail is why we're having so much trouble communicating.



Quote:

because it started with 2 units of momentum only in different directions and because the pipe is moving towards the mass the pipe may accelerate the mass even further as the pipe stops.

No no, absolutely not. Momentum is a vector. So when you add momentums you have to do vector addition. In 1D that means -1 + +1 = 0. It does not mean |-1| + |+1| = 2. No way.

-----

How about apply conservation of energy. There's no way you can doubt it's applicability to a simple 1D elastic collision, which is what we have.

You say:

Before the 1st turn
the mass has kinetic energy X
the pipe has kinetic energy Y > 0
Total kinetic energy = X+Y

After the 1st turn
the mass has kinetic energy X
the pipe has kinetic energy 0
Total kinetic energy = X

Kinetic energy has been reduced by Y. We have no friction or other energy loss. So this is impossible.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/11/11 02:02 PM

Quote:
what does the sentence below mean to you?

The pipe has momentum -1

knowing that a momentum of -1 would be saying that the pipe is moving in the negative direction with a magnatude of 1

Yes.


remember this

Quote:
Whatever momentum the mass transfers to the pipe, the pipe has to receive from the mass. If the mass gains 2, the pipe has to lose 2.



Quote:
"momentum becomes more positive".


how does momentum become more positive?
does a gain in momentum require a external force?
you say the pipe that has a magnatude of momentum of 1
and a direction of + will both decelerate to zero momentum
and then accelerate in the opposite direction with a magnatude of momentum of 1 and a direction of -

the mass only has a momentum magnatude of -1
the mass would need a momentum maganatude of -2
to both decelerate the pipe to zero momentum and
then accelerate the pipe to -1.

where did you get the extra force to accelerate the pipe in the opposite direction once the pipe stopped.

or are you saying that the pipe does not need to stop , it just magically switches directions without first stopping?





Quote:
Momentum is a vector


so how can a vector cause the pipe to stop , start , reverse directions , etc , if there is no force involved?

are you saying that a vector is a force?

In classical mechanics, momentum SI unit kgm/s, or, equivalently, Ns is the product of the mass and velocity of an object (). Like velocity, momentum is a vector quantity, possessing a direction as well as a magnitude.

Quote:
There's no such thing as "momentum force". This kind of detail is why we're having so much trouble communicating.


there is such a thing as momentum force , thats why momentum is given the symbol p in physics.

if momentum was not a force then you would not use p in equations as in below.



Momentum was not merely the motion, which was motus, but was the power residing in a moving object

In physics, power is the rate at which work is performed or energy is converted.

In physics, work is the amount of energy transferred by a force acting through a distance in the direction of the force.

the result of 2 objects that are not accelerating that collide would be quantified by using p ( the force of momentum ) , otherwise just what would you propose to use
in an equation to calculate the force of the 2 objects colliding.

let me go back and find where you have used p ( momentum )
in this thread.

yes just a few post back you used momentum as if it was a force , exactly the way it is supposed to be used as the momentum of an object is the mass x its velocity.

its velocity includes its direction.

Quote:
What is the meaning of a negative momentum?

If object A has momentum pA and object B has momentum pB, what is the total momentum of the system comprising A and B?
a) pA + pB
b) pA - pB
b) |pA| + |pB|
c) 0
d) Requires more information to answer


so in the above that you posted earlier you used p for momentum.

what specificaly were you meaning above by
pA + pB ?

its obvious that an A and an B cannot add up because you cannot add the letters in the alphabet.
so the letters A and B must be describing the momentum of the 2 objects.

so if you were to describe the resultant force due to a collision of 2 objects which words would you use.

the force of momentum.
or what?


Quote:
Quote:

because it started with 2 units of momentum only in different directions and because the pipe is moving towards the mass the pipe may accelerate the mass even further as the pipe stops.

No no, absolutely not. Momentum is a vector. So when you add momentums you have to do vector addition. In 1D that means -1 + +1 = 0. It does not mean |-1| + |+1| = 2. No way.


Im begining to wonder if you have a clue as to what happens in the real world.

when I said 2 units of momentum that is exactly what I meant.

the pipe has 1 unit , the mass has 1 unit , when they collide the collision will be the product of the 2 units of momentum.

is there a zero in your vector addition?

do your vector graphs have a zero?

do a vector graph of your car going from 0 - 10 mph
then the car goes from 10 - 0 mph

then the car is put into reverse and backs up from 0 to -10 mph

I want to see if you really believe yourself.











Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/12/11 03:26 AM

Quote:

a momentum magnatude of -1

You still don't know what magnitude means? Why don't you look things up instead of forcing yourself to remain confused?


Momentum is not force. If it was we'd call it force instead of momentum.

This is a 1-dimensional elastic collision! Nothing could be simpler. This is what teenage science students do every day. I think you just need to do some study.

Or get two coins and slide them against each other on a smooth table top.


Summary
~~~~~~~
I a 1D elastic collision:

I say - total momentum before = total momentum after

You say - sum of magnitides of momentums before = sum of magnitudes of momentums after.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/12/11 03:42 PM

Quote:
You still don't know what magnitude means? Why don't you look things up instead of forcing yourself to remain confused?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

Quote:
In classical mechanics, momentum (pl. momenta; SI unit kgm/s, or, equivalently, Ns) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object (). Like velocity, momentum is a vector quantity, possessing a direction as well as a magnitude.


in the above what do you think the product is?

I know what the magnatude is , but we decided to use symbols such as +1 or -1 or 0 in lieu of using actual momentum such as 4000 kg m/s
so when I say +1 I mean 4000 kg m/s in the + direction.

Quote:
I a 1D elastic collision:

I say - total momentum before = total momentum after

You say - sum of magnitides of momentums before = sum of magnitudes of momentums after.


kallog the sum of magnatudes is the total momentum.

Quote:
Or get two coins and slide them against each other on a smooth table top.


you would like that wouldnt you , two exact sized coins and propel them at the exact same speed towards each other.

that would prove that you would get a reversing pipe , but dont forget that the pipe is 1000 kg and the mass is 100 kg

and the mass has a speed of 40 m/s and the pipe has a speed of 4 m/s

the total momentum before the first turn is 8000 N.s

4000><4000

quite a difference there kallog ,

if the two were meeting head on they would bounce off as in your coin bouncing trick.

but thats not the case here , the mass is being propeled through a turn.

this causes the pipe with a speed of 4 m/s to stop.
and since the mass with a speed of 40 m/s is not stopping because it is traveling through a turn the mass is accelerated to an even higher speed by the momentum of the pipe.

before you had 4000><4000
now you have 8000< and 0

so the mass is now traveling at 80 m/s
so its momentum has doubled.

100 kg x 80 m/s = 8000 N.s

however it complies with conservation of momentum
and all other physical laws.

this isnt school book stuff but that is probably why you cant find it on the internet and why people just dont understand it when they come across it.

I dont understand why you cant understand this however unless your just trying to get people to think it wouldnt work so that you can become the inventor of it.

think of it as a backwards gravity assist only that in this case the mass is not being accelerated by a pull of gravity it is being accelerated by a push of the pipe as it makes its way through the turn.



in the above the green planet is moving in the direction of the arrow.
the spacecraft is being pulled toward the planet as it makes the turn.
this accelerates the spacecraft.

so just think of the pipe moving in the same direction as the planet is moving , there really is no difference between a pull or a push , and the mass cant tell a difference either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist

Quote:
Suppose that you are a "stationary" observer and that you see: a planet moving left at speed U; a spaceship moving right at speed v. If the spaceship has the proper trajectory, it will pass close to the planet, moving at speed U + v relative to the planet's surface because the planet is moving in the opposite direction at speed U. When the spaceship leaves orbit, it is still moving at U + v relative to the planet's surface but in the opposite direction, to the left; and since the planet is moving left at speed U, the total velocity of the rocket relative to you will be the velocity of the moving planet plus the velocity of the rocket with respect to the planet. So the velocity will be U + ( U + v ), that is 2U + v.










Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/13/11 06:04 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
in the above what do you think the product is?

It means mass x velocity


Quote:
kallog the sum of magnatudes is the total momentum.


We don't need to go any further until you work this out. Otherwise it's a waste of time.

pMass = -1
pPipe = 1

"the sum of the magnitudes of the momentums" = |-1| + |1| = 2
"the sum of the momentums" = -1 + 1 = 0

Both are correct, but only one is conserved.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/13/11 06:08 AM

By the way I made a small mistake about the individual momentums after the 1st turn. It's not +1 and -1 (nor +2 and 0). But I won't tell you until you work it out.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/13/11 06:34 PM

Quote:
It means mass x velocity


but you still think that momentum is not a word that is used in place of the force that a moving object has due to its movement.

F = ma is mass times acceleration.

p = mv is mass times velocity

in a collision the ONLY DIFFERENCE is that momentum includes a direction.

if there is an accelerating object accelerating at 1 m/s
and a object that has a velocity of 40 m/s

and they both have a mass of 100 kg and they both impact another object at exactly 40 m/s in the same direction the momentum will be exactly the same at each impact.

so when your dealing with a moving object that is not accelerating you can and should use the force of momentum.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/13/11 06:38 PM

Quote:
By the way I made a small mistake about the individual momentums after the 1st turn. It's not +1 and -1 (nor +2 and 0). But I won't tell you until you work it out.


we never did get that far kallog.

thats ok kallog you dont have to tell me , I dont mind.

I will say this though , the total momentum will be 8000 N.s

because it started with 8000 N.s

anything under or over 8000 N.s will violate the laws of conservation of momentum.



Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/14/11 07:27 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
I will say this though , the total momentum will be 8000 N.s

because it started with 8000 N.s

anything under or over 8000 N.s will violate the laws of conservation of momentum.


Can you provide a reference to those laws? It's different from everything I've ever seen.


Here's common-sense proof it's wrong:

Two identical 1kg objects, each travelling at 4000m/s collide head on and stick together. After they stick together you say the 2kg blob will be moving at 4000m/s.

Please confirm that's what you predict to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/14/11 07:50 AM

This page disagrees with you. Can you explain why?

http://www.splung.com/content/sid/2/page/momentum

Look at the "explosion" animation at the bottom of the page. It violates your "law of conservation of magnitude of momentum".

The collision animation above it can be made to violate your law too. Change mB from 1kg to 3kg, then press play. The total momentum before is 1kg*2m/s = 2Ns. The sum of the magnitudes of momentum after is 1*1 + 3*1 = 4.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/14/11 05:12 PM

Quote:
Two identical 1kg objects, each travelling at 4000m/s collide head on and stick together. After they stick together you say the 2kg blob will be moving at 4000m/s.


its a good thing we were discussing an elastic collision otherwise you would be correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision

Quote:
An elastic collision is an encounter between two bodies in which the total kinetic energy of the two bodies after the encounter is equal to their total kinetic energy before the encounter. Elastic collisions occur only if there is no net conversion of kinetic energy into other forms.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/14/11 05:26 PM

in reference to the link you posted and the first flash
collisions in 1-d

if you replace the mass A with 1000 kg
and
mass B with 100 kg

mass A being the 1000 kg pipe
mass B being the 100 kg mass

and velocity of A to 4 m/s

you will see that mass B ( which would be the mass ) in our discussion almost doubles the velocity of mass A.

it would be nice if you could find a flash as in the above that would actually have a mass passing through a turn.

that you could set the mass and velocity of each.

the flash is not correct because if you set both A and B to 1000 kg and set the velocity of A to 1 m/s
you end up with more kinetic energy than you started with.

A with a velocity of 0.9 m/s
B with a velocity of 1.0 m/s

the kinetic energy you started with was
A and a velocity of 1.0 m/s

so the flash must be wrong.



Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/14/11 07:16 PM

I'm not sure what this has to do with weather in NZ; however, when I run the example, it shows conservation of momentum. The display is a little confusing.

For e=1 (perfect elasticity)
Before:
Ma = 3 Kg Va=2ms&#713;
Mb = 1 Kg Vb=0ms&#713;

Total momentum before = 6 Kgms&#713;

After:
Ma = 3 Kg Va=1ms&#713;
Mb = 1 Kg Vb=3ms&#713;

Total momentum after = 6 Kgms&#713;

From the given web page
http://www.splung.com/content/sid/2/page/momentum)

" * An elastic collision is a collision where the both the momentum and the kinetic energy are conserved."

" * In an inelastic collision the momentum is conserved but the kinetic energy is not. In fact the kinetic energy will be lower after the collision because some energy has been used in creating sound, deformation and heat. The reality is that most collisions are inelastic to some extent. However, collisions between snooker balls come quite close to being elastic collisions."
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/15/11 12:19 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
its a good thing we were discussing an elastic collision otherwise you would be correct.

So your law of conservation of momentum only applies when energy is also conserved. My law applies all the time, no matter what.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/15/11 12:29 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
if you replace the mass A with 1000 kg
and
mass B with 100 kg
and velocity of A to 4 m/s

In this case the animation agrees with both of us because there is no direction change. Try it with a direction change like my example and compare to your momentum law.


Quote:

the flash is not correct because if you set both A and B to 1000 kg and set the velocity of A to 1 m/s
you end up with more kinetic energy than you started with.

I think you mistyped something there. Have another go. Make sure e=1 to conserve kinetic energy.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/15/11 12:30 AM

someone must have fixed it because it was showing the numbers I posted , maybe it showed up the wrong numbers because I was changing the values around so much before.

but it is showing the right numbers now.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/15/11 12:40 AM

http://www.convertalot.com/elastic_collision_calculator.html

Use this. It can represent our 1st turn.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/15/11 12:57 AM

its working right now , anyway I messed around with it a bit and I input 4000 kg as mass B and 100 as mass A
and the elasticity as 1

I used 4000 kg because mass B (the pipe) would have
4000 kg m/s
1000 kg x 4 m/s = 4000 kg m/s

and the result is
-38.049 m/s for va
and
1.951 m/s for vb

I believe that if mass B were traveling towards A at 4 m/s
then mass B would stop and mass A would double velocity to
-80 m/s

the resultant movement of the
4000 kg mass B to 1.951 m/s = 7804 kg m/s
we might as well say there was 8000 N.s in the collision
and 8000 N.s would accelerate the 100 kg mass to -80 m/s

of course with multiple pipe and mass sets you wouldnt even stop the pipe at all.

because there would always be say 20 masses accelerating and 1 mass in 1 of the 1st turns and 1 mass in 1 of the 2nd turns and 20 masses would be free floating to the 2nd turns.

the array would consist of 42 sets of pipes and masses.
each pipe with a mass of 1000 kg
each mass with a mass of 100 kg

so you would actually have

100 kg x 40 m/s = 4000 kg m/s , each mass
4000 kg m/s x 20 = 80,000 kg m/s , array of 20 sets accelerating
or 80,000 N.s

vs

nothing because there is 1 mass in the 1st and 2nd turns.
and they cancel each other out.



Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/15/11 01:00 AM

http://www.convertalot.com/elastic_collision_calculator.html

that is an object colliding with another object traveling in the same direction.

it wouldnt work.

Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/15/11 03:10 PM

Quote:

it wouldnt work.


No, here I'll try it -

m1 = 1000kg
m2 = 100kg
vi1 = 4m/s
vi2 = -40m/s

... calculator ...

vf1 = -4 m/s
vf2 = 40 m/s
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/15/11 03:19 PM

mass A = 100kg
mass B = 1000kg
initial speed of mass A = 40m/s
Originally Posted By: paul
I believe that if mass B were traveling towards A at 4 m/s
then mass B would stop and mass A would double velocity to
-80 m/s

That would violate both conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.

Paul, you say you know what magnitude means and you say you know what momentum means, but you don't. Please please look up "momentum" on google instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/15/11 03:45 PM

https://www.msu.edu/~brechtjo/physics/airTrack/airTrack.html

Red cart: 1000, 4
Blue cart: 100, -40


After collision:

Red cart: -4
Blue cart: 40

Different app, exactly the same result, exactly as I predicted.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/15/11 03:46 PM

Quote:
That would violate both conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.


I did reply to this then I found your post with the applet link.

so I changed this reply.
that applet makes things much better.

according to the applet you are right.

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/15/11 05:07 PM

kallog
https://www.msu.edu/~brechtjo/physics/airTrack/airTrack.html
the above applet you posted a link to proves that reactionless propulsion is possible and that is basicaly what this has all been about anyway.

set the red cart mass to 5 kg , initial velocity to 40 m/s
set the blue cart mass to 1000 kg , initial velocity to -4 m/s

set elasticity to m1 = m2 elastic
the results are as follows.

the red cart -47.56 m/s
the blue cart -3.56 m/s

the red cart ( 5 kg mass ) accelerates from 40 m/s to -47.56 m/s

the blue cart (pipe / rails) do not stop they only slow down.
to -3.56 m/s from -4 m/s

if you are using multiple rail and mass sets.

I increased the lenght of the pipe / rails to 1000 m
but to make this easier lets say the new pipe / rails length is only 400 meters.

400 / 20 = 20

say 20 masses are accelerating at any given time.
so you would have 20 masses free floating and 1 mass in the turns at each end.

a total of 42 masses.

the 20 rails have a combined mass of 1000 kg
each mass that is accelerated has a mass of 5 kg

20 x 5kg = 100 kg

each mass starts at the begining of the 400 meter rail
and they are timed to begin acceleration so that there will be 20 masses accelerating at any given time.

1 is launched then a time passes then another and so on.
this way the distance of the 5 kg masses will be spaced in their respective rail gun so that only one 5 kg mass enters the 1st turns at a time.

each mass is accelerated to 40 m/s
this in turn accelerates the 20 rails to -4 m/s
because there are always 20 masses being accelerated at any given time.

20 x 5 kg = 100 kg

so each time a single 5 kg mass collides with the pipe / rails that is traveling at -4 m/s the mass ( red cart )
reverses direction and has a velocity of -47.56 m/s

the pipe / rails does not even stop or reverse direction it only slows its velocity from -4 m/s to -3.56 m/s

so theres proof that it will work.

but lets not forget that there will also be a mass passing through the 2nd turns as well so

so change the mass of the red cart to 1000 kg
change the mass of the blue cart to 5 kg
copy the resultant -3.5621890547263684 velocity from the blue cart to the red carts initial velocity

copy the resultant velocity -47.56218905472633 from the red cart to the blue carts initial velocity

run it and you see that as the two masses pass through the 1st and 2nd turn they cancel each other out.
like I have always said.
chances are that once the system is in opperation the pipe never would even slow down...

results are as follows

red cart -4 m/s
blue cart 40 m/s (39.999999999999964) actual


now to make it so that there is no movement before your ready to go , you could have accelerator rails where the masses free float , and synchronized launching of the masses from the + direction rails and from the - direction rails would cause the pipe / rails to not move.



if you want to go forwards or backwards you just shut down the accelerator that you dont need to travel in that direction.


and it wouldnt cost more than 18 billion to build and it would be as if our technology isnt still stagnated.

using the same exact space propulsion as we have for the last 60 or 70 years or so.



Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/16/11 02:03 AM

Now we agree what happens a little more:

Before starting:
pPipe = 0
pMass = 0
pTotal = 0

After the acceleration:
pPipe = 4000Ns
pMass = -4000Ns
pTotal = 0

After the 1st turn:
pPipe = -4000Ns
pMass - 4000Ns
pTotal = 0

After the 2nd turn:
...
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/16/11 02:17 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
say 20 masses are accelerating at any given time.

Isn't this supposed to work with just one mass? Stick to 1 mass until you clearly acknowledge that it cannot work at all with just one mass.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/16/11 07:26 AM

I have the urge to program one of those animations myself, but with the full blown pipe and accelerator. I know it won't convince you but I think I just want to do it for fun!

OK, did it:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21857463/tube.exe

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/16/11 02:03 PM

just paste the code on the forum.
Im not in the habit of opening .exe's off the web.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/16/11 02:04 PM

Quote:
After the 1st turn:
pPipe = 4000Ns
pMass = -4000Ns
pTotal = 0


did you follow what I did on the applet you posted?
https://www.msu.edu/~brechtjo/physics/airTrack/airTrack.html

set the red cart mass to 5 kg , initial velocity to 40 m/s
set the blue cart mass to 1000 kg , initial velocity to -4 m/s

set elasticity to m1 = m2 elastic
the results are as follows.

the red cart -47.56 m/s
the blue cart -3.56 m/s

the red cart ( 5 kg mass ) accelerates from 40 m/s to -47.56 m/s

the blue cart (pipe / rails) do not stop they only slow down.
to -3.56 m/s from -4 m/s

you must be capable of thinking about using the
42 rail and mass sets and the 20 masses accelerating as described above.

for us to continue.

Quote:
Isn't this supposed to work with just one mass? Stick to 1 mass until you clearly acknowledge that it cannot work at all with just one mass.


heres an example.

you have a water pail that has a small hole in it at its bottom.

you want to carry 1 oz of water for a distance of 399 meters.
the pail can initially hold 400 oz of water.

but the small hole leaks 1 oz per second.

you have the ability to run 1 meter per second so you can make it the distance of 399 meters and still have 1 oz of water remaining in the water pail.

but if you only put 1 oz of water in the pail you will never achieve your goal.



Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/16/11 02:53 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
but if you only put 1 oz of water in the pail you will never achieve your goal.


You mean to say IT CANNOT WORK WITH ONE MASS!!!?

So now we agree that IT CANNOT WORK WITH ONE MASS!!

Does that mean you can agree with my calculations for one mass? You retract your claims that it would work with one mass?
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/16/11 03:11 PM

Quote:
the applet you posted a link to gives different data
than the above.


You probably let it do more that one collision. Check after just one collision. Beyond that and we're not modelling our flying tube anymore.


Anyway here's my program in the form of a Visual Basic 2008 Express Edition project. You can download that from MS.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21857463/tube.zip

The guts of it is this:

Code:
        'Update positions
        oldMassPosition = massPosition
        oldTubePosition = tubePosition
        massPosition = massPosition + massVelocity * TimeStepSize
        tubePosition = tubePosition + tubeVelocity * TimeStepSize

        'Check for hitting end of tube
        If (massPosition < tubePosition) Or (massPosition > tubePosition + tubeLength) Then
            Dim newMassVelocity As Double
            Dim newTubeVelocity As Double
            newMassVelocity = (massVelocity * (massMass - tubeMass) + 2 * tubeMass * tubeVelocity) / (massMass + tubeMass)
            newTubeVelocity = (tubeVelocity * (tubeMass - massMass) + 2 * massMass * massVelocity) / (massMass + tubeMass)
            massVelocity = newMassVelocity
            tubeVelocity = newTubeVelocity
        End If

        'Check for passing accelerator
        If massVelocity - tubeVelocity < 0 Then 'Only apply accelerator when going left
            If ((massPosition - tubePosition) <= AcceleratorLocation) _
            And ((oldMassPosition - oldTubePosition) > AcceleratorLocation) Then
                massVelocity = massVelocity - MomentumAddedByAccelerator / massMass
                tubeVelocity = tubeVelocity + MomentumAddedByAccelerator / tubeMass
            End If
        End If


The big equations I got from the "Elastic Collision" page on Wikipedia

Here's a screenshot
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/16/11 03:38 PM

So now we agree that IT CANNOT WORK WITH ONE MASS!!



thats what I have been trying to say all along , but you insisted on using only 1 mass.

actually below is where this all started
#34660 - May 31, 2010 01:46 PM
Originally Posted By: paul
why do you need to throw something outside the ship?
why not just throw it out inside the ship.

the same reaction would occur.

and you still have your propellant.

#34769 - June 07, 2010 12:12 AM
Originally Posted By: kallog
Yea you're mostly right. You can cause movement of a closed pipe, or change the speed of a spinning space station by moving things around inside. This is exactly what physicists already know.

BUT! It isn't sustainable, so you can't actaully travel and useful distance.


And here was the begining of the 20 masses being accelerated only I used 20 people.

#34885 - June 10, 2010 11:11 AM

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:
If he kicks off with a tiny force, then he spends a long time floating back down. So the pipe keeps on moving backwards slowly for a long time. In the end, the distance (velocity * time) is the same and it's all back where it started.


yes but if there are other people climbing up the ladder , the
tiny force that he applies will be overcome by the larger forces.

so if you have 1 person stopping at the end and 20 climbing
and 20 floating back.

20 larger forces -------------------->
and 1 tiny force <-
and 1 person stopping<--

so you have the force applied by 20 people
vs the -force of 1 person as he reaches the end plus the tiny force he applies to return , and the tiny force cancels out when he gets there.

#35029 - June 17, 2010 11:21 PM
Originally Posted By: kallog
Now I've shown no long-term movement with 2 masses, you can expand the calculation for 20 masses. But why 20? Why not 10? 100? 2?


I went back and followed this discussion in its original thread and after many many many times of me insisting that the system uses 20 masses accelerating and 1 mass in the (-) turn and 1 mass in the (+) turn , you kept having trouble with the system.

Quote:
quote:paul
lets drop all the confussing stuff.

we now have 1 mass and thats all.


so I did lower the 20 accelerating masses to 1 accelerating mass.

with the intention of later replacing the 19 that I removed
because it was too confusing for you to follow.

so since I removed them I replace them.

surely you can now follow using 20 accelerating masses
most likely you could follow before using 20 accelerating masses but in order for your side of the discussion to leverage an advantage you knew it had to be lowered to only 1 mass and never more than 1 mass.


now I suppose my question to you is.

do you think you can follow using 20 accelerating masses?

you can even make your program to show the amount of momentum added to the pipe using the 20 accelerating masses and then the amount of momentum added or subtracted from the momentum of the pipe as a single mass passes through both a (-) and a (+) turn.

I dont need a program as I would just think of it as if the 20 masses were already being accelerating.

the same force is being applied to each of the 5 kg masses.

there are 20 being accelerated.

each mass is being accelerated to 40 m/s

the same force that is applied to the 20 masses by the accelerator is also being applied to the pipes only in the opposite direction.

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/16/11 03:44 PM

your program has a set number of 4000 that reads momentum added by accelerator , this number should be 8000

because
the pipe has 4000 N.s
and
the mass has 4000 N.s
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/17/11 12:43 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
your program has a set number of 4000 that reads momentum added by accelerator , this number should be 8000


That number means the momentum added to the pipe (and subtracted from the mass). So they both get 4000 but in different directions.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/17/11 01:02 AM

[quote=paul]So now we agree that IT CANNOT WORK WITH ONE MASS!!

Do you agree with the results of my program?
It shows the pipe never moves further than its own length.
Look at the numbers, do you agree with them too?
When you do, we can go to 20 masses.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/17/11 02:15 AM

Quote:
Do you agree with the results of my program?
It shows the pipe never moves further than its own length.
Look at the numbers, do you agree with them too?
When you do, we can go to 20 masses.


Do you agree with the results of my program?
I havent used your program below is all I have seen.
It shows the pipe never moves further than its own length.
how far did it move?
Look at the numbers, do you agree with them too?
yes I can agree with them if they are before the 1st turn.
When you do, we can go to 20 masses.
then lets go to 20 masses!

also I changed the pipe lenght to 400 meters.
400 m / 20 = 20 meters

I changed the pipe lenght to 400 meters so the acceleration of each of the 20 masses will be 2 m/s/s
http://tutor4physics.com/motion1d.htm

so

F=ma

10 N = 5kg x 2 m/s/s

remember there is a total of 42 masses

each mass has its own pipe and its own 2 turns.

change the mass of the mass to 5 kg each.


a force of 10 N is required to accelerate a 5 kg mass to 40 m/s/s over a distance of 400 meters.

5kg x 40 m/s/s = 200 N is the force the pipe will feel as the mass passes through the turns.

10 N x 20 masses = +200 N force applied to the pipe in the (+) direction.

so there will be a constant force of +200 N causing the pipe to move in the (+) direction.

can you agree with the above?


--------- this is the constant force that the pipe feels as the 2 masses pass through the 2 turns simultaneously.------

there is 1 mass in each turn.


so below are the calculations of the force that the pipe
would feel as the 2 masses pass through the 2 turns.

------------------- the single mass that passes through the 1st turn

5kg x -40 m/s = -200 N


------------------- the single mass that passes through the 2nd turn at the same time

5kg x +40 m/s = +200 N

because the two masses passing through the 2 turns have the same velocity only different directions and would apply the same force to the 2 turns at the same time , the pipe would not be affected by the masses passing through them as far as pipe speed is concerned.

by launching the masses toward turn 1 and 2 at the same time with the same force the 2 launched masses will reach the opposing turns simultaneously.

they will apply the same force to the pipe only in different directions.

the launching and acceleration of the 2 masses in opposite directions will apply the same force in opposite directions to the pipe.

the 2 accelerating masses as described above would not cause the pipe to move yet.

so far we have launched 2 masses that are in opposing directions.

result = zero movement.

and we have passed 2 of the 5 kg masses through their respective opposing turns.

this did not cause the pipe to move either.

can you agree with the above?


Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/17/11 06:32 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
yes I can agree with them if they are before the 1st turn.


It does many turns and many accelerations. Use the program and see if you agree. If not there's no point my extending it to more masses.

If you're afraid of a virus, get VB, create a project, add some buttons/etc, paste my code in, etc. and make it work.


Quote:

remember there is a total of 42 masses

each mass has its own pipe and its own 2 turns.

What a mess. Are you saying the old way with 20 masses and one pipe cannot work? If you are please say it clearly that your entire argument up till recently has been wrong.

If you think the other way would work, then we should use that instead because it's probably simpler.


Quote:

can you agree with the above?

I didn't really read it. There's no point. When I tell you where you're wrong you don't understand. Have you worked out how to add momentums yet?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/18/11 03:08 PM

Quote:
What a mess. Are you saying the old way with 20 masses and one pipe cannot work?


there never was just 20 masses , there were 20 masses accelerating.

20 masses moving towards the 2nd turn.

and 1 mass in each turn.

42 masses , I looked back and its there just look for it.

Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/18/11 03:20 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
there were 20 masses accelerating.
20 masses moving towards the 2nd turn.
and 1 mass in each turn.
42 masses , I looked back and its there just look for it.


What is the minimum required? You seem to be saying:
- It cannot work with 1 mass
- It will work with 42 masses
How about something between 1 and 42? What makes you confident about 42 but unsure about 40?

What if I try 2? Do you predict motion of the pipe further than its own length? Does it depend where they are when they start? I don't want the rules changing after I programmed it.

How long does it remain in that state of 20 accelerating, 20 going the other way, and 2 turning? The masses will probably get out of sync pretty quickly because of their different speeds.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/18/11 04:18 PM

maybe it wont work.


Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/18/11 08:05 PM

maybe it will

there is a way to make it work using only 1 mass and 1 pipe
but having 101 sets of a mass and a pipe.

----------------------------- time -------------
http://tutor4physics.com/motion1d.htm
to accelerate a object to a distance of 1000 meters
with a final velocity of 40 m/s
and a initial velocity of 0 m/s
requires an acceleration of 0.8 m/s/s
http://www.ajdesigner.com/constantacceleration/cavelocitya.php
the time it takes to accelerate a mass from 0 m/s to 40 m/s
at 0.8 m/s/s is 50 seconds.
-----------------------------------


by bringing the two ends of turn 2 together so that they do not form a turn around.

and so that the mass must stop as it reaches the furthermost
(+) side of the pipe.

this would remove 1 of the 2 turns.

using a 1000 kg set of 101 pipes that are 1000 m in lenght.
and using a total of 101 100 kg masses.

by accelerating the 101 masses independently in a synchronized way
1 each second for 101 seconds

durring any second after 101 seconds there will be
50 masses traveling in the + direction
50 masses traveling in the - direction
and 1 mass in the turn

-----------------------------------

so that they will be a distance of 1 second apart as they reach the turn
each mass will reach the turn with a velocity of -40 m/s

-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------

by accelerating the 50 masses to the turn.
you have applied a force of +4000 N to the pipe

50 masses x +80N each = +4000N pipe

and -------------------------------

by decelerating the 50 masses to the (+) end of the pipe.
you have applied a force of +4000 N to the pipe

50 masses x +80 = +4000N pipe


this causes the pipe to travel in the (+) direction.
because of the combined force of both the
50 accelerating masses x +80N = +4000N pipe
and the
50 decelerating masses x +80N = +4000N pipe

total +8000N
-----------------------------------

every second the pipe is feeling a force of +8000N
-----------------------------------


the 100 kg mass passes through the turn and
it applies a force of -4000 N to the pipe

1 x 100kg x -40m/s = -4000N

------------------------------------

the turn is 40 meters in length.
the mass has a velocity of 40 m/s
it takes 1 second for the mass to pass through the turn.
100 kg x 40 m/s = 4000N
so in 1 second the mass applies its momentum due to its movement to the pipe.

and that is -4000N

every second the pipe is feeling a force of -4000N

(+8000N) + (-4000N) = +4000N pipe

during opperation the pipe will feel a constant force
in the (+) direction of +4000N

you can generate enough electricity using the decelerating masses to pay for the next cycle.

it takes 101 seconds for a mass to complete 1 cycle
of acceleration , turn , deceleration

when a mass has completed a cycle it is then accelerated again.





Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/19/11 12:16 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
50 accelerating masses x +80N = +4000N pipe
and the
50 decelerating masses x +80N = +4000N pipe

What about the masses in the 1st turn? They apply a force pushing the pipe backwards.

I've already demonstrated to your satisfaction that a mass changing direction will transfer double it's initial momentum to the pipe.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/19/11 12:27 PM

Quote:
What about the masses in the 1st turn? They apply a force pushing the pipe backwards.

there is only 1 mass in the turn each second.

it applies a force of -4000N
but that force is opposed by a force of +8000N

Quote:
transfer double it's initial momentum


I dont think thats possible kallog.

take into consideration the two carts applet for an example.

https://www.msu.edu/~brechtjo/physics/airTrack/airTrack.html

using two 1 kg masses

and accelerating them both at 40 m/s toward each other.

the result shows that neither mass has recieved double the momentum of the other mass.

because both 1 kg masses move away from each other at 40 m/s

if what you say were possible then each mass would transfer double its momentum into the other mass and they would both be moving away from each other at 80 m/s vs 40 m/s after they collide.

now if you look at the details of it you find that there is a required force of a (-) and (+) 40N to first stop
the two carts.
because they must stop in order to change directions.

so in the 2 carts example above they both did.
Quote:
transfer double it's initial momentum


the collision generated 160N
80N was used up in stopping the two carts.
80N was used up accelerating the two carts to -40m/s
and +40m/s

back to the pipe and mass system...

using only the (+) and (-) directed forces would show that
there is more force being applied to the pipe in the (+)
direction than in the (-) direction at any given time after the first 101 seconds.

its like a tug of WAR and the positive forces win.

Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/19/11 02:33 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
using two 1 kg masses

and accelerating them both at 40 m/s toward each other.

the result shows that neither mass has recieved double the momentum of the other mass.

because both 1 kg masses move away from each other at 40 m/s


The mass on the left changed it's momentum from 40kgm/s to -40kgm/s. That's a difference of -80kgm/s.

The mass on the right changed it's momentum from -40kgm/s to 40kgm/s. That's a difference of 80kgm/s.

A change in momentum of only 40kgm/s (1 times) would cause it to stop, not change direction.

This is the reason solar sails are supposed to be reflective, not black. Photons bouncing off give twice as much momentum as photons that are absorbed.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/19/11 03:40 PM

Quote:
The mass on the left changed it's momentum from 40kgm/s to -40kgm/s. That's a difference of -80kgm/s.


thats why I said

Quote:
the collision generated 160N
80N was used up in stopping the two carts.
80N was used up accelerating the two carts to -40m/s
and +40m/s


Quote:
A change in momentum of only 40kgm/s (1 times) would cause it to stop, not change direction.


but it has a change in momentum of 80N not 40N

so +40N spring tension stops it from going in the (-) direction
and +40N spring tension accelerates it in the (+) direction.

like a spring that stores up +40N
as you apply -40N to compress the spring.
once the spring is compressed and the mass has stopped moving.
you still have +40N stored in the spring.

and that +40N accelerates the 1 kg mass to +40 m/s.

I believe this is where your understanding is flawed.
earlier when you said
Quote:
transfer double it's initial momentum


it cannot double its momentum all by itself.
it would need another force acting on it.

so where is the other force?

Quote:
This is the reason solar sails are supposed to be reflective, not black. Photons bouncing off give twice as much momentum as photons that are absorbed.


just like the spring above!

consider the spring attached to the solar sail.
but the solar sail isnt moving yet.
give the solar sail a mass of 1000000 kg

now apply a -40N force to the spring.
the solar sail feels the -40N force that you apply to the spring , and as you apply the -40N force the solar sails mass resist movement momentarily while you depress the spring.
but you have depressed the spring and if you hold it in with a -40 N force the sail will move away from you.

you can then multiply the
solar sails mass x its velocity

p=mv

and it will equal -40N

that is not double momentum.

that is -40N for -40N

action / reaction

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Secondlaw.ogg



Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/20/11 03:13 AM

Originally Posted By: paul

Quote:
transfer double it's initial momentum


it cannot double its momentum all by itself.
it would need another force acting on it.

Your use of English is part of your problem. "transfer double .." means it _transfers_ twice what it had. It doesn't mean anything doubles its momentum.

Anyway, we know that for every mass, the effect of the turns and accelerator cancel out. No matter how many masses you use, they're still cancelling out.

If you want to change it to a dead-end then you have to clearly state that the entire recirculating mass idea was wrong.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/20/11 03:17 AM

Originally Posted By: paul

you can then multiply the
solar sails mass x its velocity

p=mv

and it will equal -40N


mass x velocity does not have units of force (N). Why should I try to interpret what you intend to say when it has such fundamental mistakes.

If you mean momentum, then that won't be 40 anythings either. The momentum will depend on how much time the force was applied for. You havn't stated that so we can't know what the momentum will be.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/20/11 04:10 AM

Quote:
:kallog]Your use of English is part of your problem. "transfer double .." means it _transfers_ twice what it had. It doesn't mean anything doubles its momentum.


you mean it transfers twice its momentum because thats what it had?
1)it had mass
and
2)its mass had velocity

I would think that what it had was a combination of its mass
and its velocity , which is its momentum.

it didnt transfer twice its mass!
it didnt transfer twice its velocity!
so what is the thing it had that it transfered twice?


Quote:
:kallog]Anyway, we know that for every mass, the effect of the turns and accelerator cancel out. No matter how many masses you use, they're still cancelling out.


theres only 1 turn.

Quote:
:paul]by bringing the two ends of turn 2 together so that they do not form a turn around.

and so that the mass must stop as it reaches the furthermost
(+) side of the pipe.

this would remove 1 of the 2 turns.



Quote:
:kallog]If you want to change it to a dead-end then you have to clearly state that the entire recirculating mass idea was wrong.


it wasnt wrong , its the same thing.
the 2nd turn applied +4000N also.

remember the masses that floated to the 2nd turn , they supplied no force that would cause the pipe to accelerate or decelerate.

I just replaced the turn that was giving the pipe
the +4000N force with a full stop decelerator that gives the pipe a +4000N force.

and the +4000N is still there because the decelerator is attached to the pipe and it decelerates the 50 100 kg masses to 0 m/s.

+80N is required to decelerate a 100kg mass from +40m/s to 0 m/s.

50 x +80N = +4000N

its still +8000N pipe and -4000N pipe as its always been.

leaving a +4000N force to move the pipe in the (+) direction.

Quote:
:kallog]mass x velocity does not have units of force (N). Why should I try to interpret what you intend to say when it has such fundamental mistakes.


Quote:
:kallog]If you mean momentum, then that won't be 40 anythings either. The momentum will depend on how much time the force was applied for. You havn't stated that so we can't know what the momentum will be.


your talking about acceleration because f=ma
you dont need time to calculate momentum.
p=mv
time is already in the velocity

momentum = mass x velocity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

Quote:
:wikipedia]In classical mechanics, momentum (pl. momenta; SI unit kgm/s, or, equivalently, Ns) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object


I said the following

Quote:
:paul]and it will equal -40N



by applying the -40N force to the spring that is attached to the solar sail.
over a time of 1 second
or over a time of 1000 seconds does not matter.

the spring only requires -40N to compress it.

you can take a million years to let the spring expand but all you will ever get out of it is -40N acting against the solar sail.

so guess what , if it takes a million years or 1 second for the spring to expand , the solar sail will still have
only -40N momentum because if you multiply its velocity x its mass its momentum will equal -40N

if I would have included time by adding the time it takes for the spring to compress it would not change a thing.

if I would have included time by adding the time it takes for the spring to expand it would not change a thing.

would you like another?


Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/20/11 03:38 PM

I suppose your questioning your education as I write this.

its not that your education is flawed beyond repair its that those who gave you your education made you think certain things were not possible.
because those that gave them their education made them think certain things were not possible.

etc...etc...etc.

rely on the math , its right or pretty darn close.

throw the theoretical laws into the theory can.

put the lid on it ( so they cannot escape ) and
put the can in your attic.

or use it to prop up a table.

thats about all its worth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7kzsZreG0o


Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/20/11 03:54 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
so what is the thing it had that it transfered twice?

Neither mass nor velocity but the product of them.

Quote:
I just replaced the turn that was giving the pipe
the +4000N force with a full stop decelerator that gives the pipe a +4000N force.

A change of direction has the same effect on the pipe as a stop? How can you possibly imagine that to be true? What if we stop it, then accelerate it in the opposite direction. Will that give +8000N while a U-bend is only +4000N?



Quote:

so guess what , if it takes a million years or 1 second for the spring to expand , the solar sail will still have
only -40N momentum because if you multiply its velocity x its mass its momentum will equal -40N

Are you seriously saying that applying the same force for a longer time will give the same momentum to an object?

Did you ever try pushing a car? Or anything at all for that matter? Don't say it has to have a spring, everything has a spring, just it's often very stiff and only compresses a short distance.

As soon as you start applying the 40N to the (massless) spring, the solar sail immediately feels the full 40N and starts accelerating at a=40N/mass. It keeps on accelerating while you keep applying the force. So the longer you hold the force on it, the faster it will move.

Your physics skills seem to be deteriorating. Why are you so reluctant to look things up? I often go and research things so I know something about what I'm saying on internet forums.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/20/11 04:00 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
throw the theoretical laws into the theory can.


Right or wrong, those theories have given us cars and computers.

Millions of made-up ideas that were never tested, have internal inconsistencies and contradict observations of the real world (remember that inconvenient thing?) have given us nothing.

Again, if you're sure you're right, then you won't be talking about it, you will have already built it and will now be a Nobel prize winner who's also RICHER THAN GOD. No barrier is too great to stop you if you're confident enough. Your refusal to put your money where your mouth is proves that you don't believe your own words.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/20/11 05:13 PM

Quote:
A change of direction has the same effect on the pipe as a stop? How can you possibly imagine that to be true? What if we stop it, then accelerate it in the opposite direction. Will that give +8000N while a U-bend is only +4000N?


Quote:
A change of direction has the same effect on the pipe as a stop? How can you possibly imagine that to be true?


the same effect on the pipes acceleration.
that effect is +4000N


Quote:
What if we stop it, then accelerate it in the opposite direction.Will that give +8000N


if we stop it
deceleration = +4000N pipe

then accelerate it in the opposite direction
acceleration = +4000N pipe

Will that give +8000N
yes , and it gives it to the pipe


Quote:
What if we stop it, then accelerate it in the opposite direction.Will that give +8000N while a U-bend is only +4000N?


the U-bend does not stop it.

it doesnt slow its velocity.

it still has its mass and its velocity

its momentum is +4000N

stopping an object completely and then re-accelerating that object requires more
force than simply changing its direction through a turn.

the force going into the turn was -4000N
the force going out of the turn is +4000N

I would think that because the mass has +4000N
as it leaves the turn , the pipe was only given -4000N
of the 8000N.

does you car require double the gas if you only drive around in a circle?



Quote:
Are you seriously saying that applying the same force for a longer time will give the same momentum to an object?


yes , if your using a spring that can only store a given amount of force.
you can spend 1 second , 1/2 second , 600,000,000 years or any amount of time you choose to compress the spring , it will only store the 40N

when you use the force stored in the spring , it wont matter how long the force is applied to the mass , because the 40N stored force is

40 kg m / 1 second
or
20 kg m / 2 seconds
or
10 kg m / 4 seconds

etc...etc...etc...

Quote:
As soon as you start applying the 40N to the (massless) spring, the solar sail immediately feels the full 40N and starts accelerating at a=40N/mass.


so if the solar sail has a mass of 1000000 kg
the acceleration would be
a=40N/1000000
.00004 m/s/s

wow thats fast.

now lets find its momentum !!

p=mv

1000000 x .00004 = 40N

YEP !!


Quote:
Your physics skills seem to be deteriorating.


from the looks of it it is your physics skills that need a little brushing up.
however your trickery skills are improving.

Quote:
I often go and research things so I know something about what I'm saying on internet forums.


ok , then you start doing that , if it will help.


meanwhile
would you like a few more?





Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/20/11 05:45 PM

Quote:
Right or wrong, those theories have given us cars and computers.


No they havent , they have stagnated technology.

besides , can anything be designed using only theories.

while

anything can be designed using only math.

Quote:
Millions of made-up ideas that were never tested, have internal inconsistencies and contradict observations of the real world (remember that inconvenient thing?) have given us nothing.

Again, if you're sure you're right, then you won't be talking about it, you will have already built it and will now be a Nobel prize winner who's also RICHER THAN GOD. No barrier is too great to stop you if you're confident enough. Your refusal to put your money where your mouth is proves that you don't believe your own words.


that sounds like a theory.

anyway were not discussing me or my finances or your theories were discussing this concept.

if you believe your theories are correct then why cant you prove that , this is the ideal place to do so.

theories are a part of physics ,and the math of physics is supposed to back up the theories.








Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/20/11 11:29 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
the U-bend does not stop it.

it doesnt slow its velocity.

Quote:

its momentum is +4000N

N is not a unit of momentum. So nothing can have a momentum of +4000N.

[quote]
the force going into the turn was -4000N
the force going out of the turn is +4000N

What are these forces acting on? Obviously the force on the mass is in the same direction, both going into the turn and coming out of it. Similarly for the force on the pipe.


Quote:

does you car require double the gas if you only drive around in a circle?

No it doesn't. But our system is frictionless, so the comparable car would require no gas, whether circling or doing a U-turn or bouncing off a spring, or even stopping with regenerative breaking, then accelerating again. Can you say anything that isn't completely misguided?


Quote:

you can spend 1 second , 1/2 second , 600,000,000 years or any amount of time you choose to compress the spring , it will only store the 40N

You're ignoring the part where the force used to compress the spring is also, at the same time, accelerating the sail. Springs don't make forces disappear. We already went through that argument before. If you don't believe me, break open a pen and try pushing the spring. Notice the force is transmitted right through. Use the spring to push something, the thing can be pushed via the spring.


Quote:

the 40N stored force is
40 kg m / 1 second

40N = 40 kg m / s^2
So no, those expressions are not equal.


Quote:

a=40N/1000000
.00004 m/s/s

p=mv
1000000 x .00004 = 40N

Force is not momentum. Velocity is not acceleration. Let's find its momentum after 2 seconds:
p=mv
p=ma*t
1000000 x .00004 x 2 = 80Ns

Let's find its momentum after 1000 seconds:
p=mv
p=ma*t
1000000 x .00004 x 1000 = 40,000Ns


Quote:

from the looks of it it is your physics skills that need a little brushing up.

This really is becoming bizarre. You have just made claims that can be disproved simply by playing with things in the real world. You absolutely havn't got a hope when it comes to physics. Look at all the corrections I made to your lies. Why didn't you try to actually understand what you're saying before saying it?


Just in case you didn't get it the other times:
Force is not momentum
Velocity is not acceleration
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/20/11 11:34 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
if you believe your theories are correct then why cant you prove that , this is the ideal place to do so.


Haven't you seen all the messages I wrote to you? They explain why it can't work. They explain what it would do instead. They explain why your claims are wrong. What more do you need?

You need to find a new hobby. There's no possibility you can learn high school physics, or even observe the real world yourself - all this time and you haven't. Just give up.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/21/11 01:11 AM

Quote:
N is not a unit of momentum. So nothing can have a momentum of +4000N


then tell me what is a unit of momentum.
let me ask you a question , if a object that is not accelerating and has a velocity
of 40 m/s , what would its momentum be in your world.



this is really getting old , kallog

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics

Quote:
In classical mechanics, momentum (pl. momenta; SI unit kgm/s, or, equivalently, Ns)


Quote:
Obviously the force on the mass is in the same direction, both going into the turn and coming out of it. Similarly for the force on the pipe.


you do understand that you just contradicted yourself by saying the mass has a force on it.

Quote:
No it doesn't. But our system is frictionless, so the comparable car would require no gas


thats true.

Quote:
require no gas, whether circling or doing a U-turn or bouncing off a spring, or even stopping with regenerative breaking, then accelerating again. Can you say anything that isn't completely misguided?


Quote:
even stopping with regenerative breaking, then accelerating again.


so now its just F=m

if it has mass you can accelerate it without a force.

Quote:
You're ignoring the part where the force used to compress the spring is also, at the same time, accelerating the sail.


Im not ignoring it , I said momentarily !

in fact here is what I said

Quote:
now apply a -40N force to the spring.
the solar sail feels the -40N force that you apply to the spring , and as you apply the -40N force the solar sails mass resist movement momentarily while you depress the spring.
but you have depressed the spring and if you hold it in with a -40 N force the sail will move away from you.


xxx

Quote:
If you don't believe me, break open a pen and try pushing the spring. Notice the force is transmitted right through. Use the spring to push something, the thing can be pushed via the spring.


just a minute.
it just so happens that I have one.
ok , now let me go outside to my truck.
........... time passes .....................
nope the truck didnt move !!!

but we were only using a 40N force stored in the spring vs
a 1000000 kg mass.

thats about right!!!

Quote:
40N = 40 kg m / s^2
So no, those expressions are not equal.


that would be a force of 40N.s
which would be like a mass x its acceleration.
we were talking about a spring.
the force that the spring can supply as it expands.
thats why I used N


Quote:
Force is not momentum. Velocity is not acceleration. Let's find its momentum after 2 seconds:
p=mv
p=ma*t
1000000 x .00004 x 2 = 80Ns

Let's find its momentum after 1000 seconds:
p=mv
p=ma*t
1000000 x .00004 x 1000 = 40,000Ns


kallog do you have any springs that you can apply a force to and get 2 times that force back by allowing the spring to expand in 2 seconds?

better yet I want the one that you can apply a force to and get 1000 times that force back by allowing the spring to expand in 1000 seconds?

thats awesome.

I think the problem here is that you are using a force that is constant over a period of time.

40N x 2 seconds = 80N
and
40N x 1000 seconds = 40,000N

that would be like you standing there re-compressing the spring every time it
expands .000000000000000000000000001 meters.

I am using a spring that does not deliver a constant force over a period of time.

the force that the spring delivers gets lower and lower as it expands.

so its not constant , its force gets consumed unlike what your using.

maybe we shouldnt use momentum.

because if I apply a force of 40N to a spring for 1 second
I should only be able to get 40N of force out of that spring
no matter how much time it takes for the spring to expand.

a spring is not a inexhaustable supply of force.

maybe it would be better to just ask you what word would you use to describe the amount of force that an object that isnt accelerating (but has a velocity) that collides with another object would generate?

you pick a word for us to use.

and it will represent the (force) that a moving object
(not a accelerating object) will place on another object.

this is really getting ridiculous , I cant help it that the stupid idiots that made the physics words didnt include a word for that so lets just make one up to use.

a word that can be used to describe the following

a 10 kg mass that is traveling at a speed of 1 meter per second (not meter per second per second) should have a
(the word we choose) of 10 kg m/s

if it strikes a wall it should deliver a
(the word we choose) of 10 kg m/s to the wall.

so that you can write a sentence like below describing the
(the word we choose) that the 10 kg m/s object applied to the wall.

a mass of 10 kg struck the wall traveling at 1 meter per second and generated a (the word we choose) of 10 kg m/s

we cant use force for the word because the object isnt accelerating.
because force is mass x acceleration.

we cant use momentum because momentum isnt a force.

so what word can we use?


Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/21/11 04:32 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
then tell me what is a unit of momentum.
unit kgm/s, or, equivalently, Ns


Quote:

let me ask you a question , if a object that is not accelerating and has a velocity
of 40 m/s , what would its momentum be in your world.

Use p=mv



Quote:

it just so happens that I have one.
ok , now let me go outside to my truck.
........... time passes .....................
nope the truck didnt move !!!

Do you know why? It's not directly because of the large mass of the truck. There are other factors which we don't have in the tube.


Quote:
40N = 40 kg m / s^2
So no, those expressions are not equal.


Quote:

that would be a force of 40N.s

Ararrh13!#@ Force does not have units of Ns!!!! That's momentum. Come on! Your own reference to Wikipedia agrees with me.


Quote:
kallog do you have any springs that you can apply a force to and get 2 times that force back by allowing the spring to expand in 2 seconds?

Expand? Why is the spring expanding? If you apply enough force to compress it, it'll remain compressed as long as the force is applied. It'll also move with the sail so you have to keep expending energy running after it applying that force.

Unless the force is reacted against the sail itself, then it won't keep accelerating the sail and won't keep consuming energy. Something like a latch that clamps the spring in compression.



Quote:
isnt accelerating (but has a velocity) that collides with another object would generate?
you pick a word for us to use.

Not enough information. It depends how much the objects deform. If the two bodies are rigid then the force would theoretically be infinite. If they deform (plasticly or elastically) then the force will be less. It'll typically increase gradually as the collision starts, then diminish again. That's why we use soft padding to reduce the forces on things when they're dropped or walked into.

Although it's very complex to model the (changing) force during a collision, we can easily find the overall effect using impulse. I think impulse is what you're looking for. But it's not a force, look it up if you aren't sure.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/21/11 03:31 PM

if impulse is also not a force then I wont use it either.

1 Newton

is a force of earths gravity on a mass of
about 102 g = (1/9.81 kg) (such as a small apple).

were not discussing anything on earth.

so we shouldnt use newtons as the unit of force either.

1 pound force

is equal to the gravitational force exerted on a mass of one avoirdupois pound on the surface of Earth
so we shouldnt use pound force either.

1 dyne

is the force required to accelerate a mass of one gram at a rate of one centimetre per second squared


maybe we should use dyne as our force because we are not affected by earths gravity in space , in fact lets move the pipe a long distance away from a gravity source so that gravity will not interfere with our discussion.

1 dyn = 1 gcm/s = .00001 N

so 1kg at a velocity of 1000 cm/s = 1000 dyn

so the force for acceleration would be
1000 dyn force = 1 kg at a rate of 10m/s/s
meaning that a force of 1000 dyn applied each second is required to accelerate an 1 kg mass to a acceleration of 10m/s/s

and the impact force would be
1000 dyn = 1 kg at a velocity of 10m/s

the reason I reason the above is because at impact the
product of the impacting objects mass x its velocity is the force that another object will feel. so it does not matter what the impacting objects rate of acceleration was before the impact.

thus my biotch with the current use of the word force only being associated with an accelerating object.

lets call 1000 dyne kdf for killo dyn force

so that we can say things like the following.

1 kdf will accelerate a 1 kg mass to 10 m/s/s
and
a object with a mass of 1 kg and a velocity of 10 m/s strikes a wall with a force of 1 kdf

this way I can use the word force while trying to discuss what were trying to discuss.

as in the force that the mass has as it enters the turn.

that force being the product of its mass x its velocity
and I will use kdf as the units.

or I could do this when communicating.

as in a equation

the product of the masses mass x its velocity = mv

and

a = the product of the masses mass x its velocity / Mass


Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/21/11 05:22 PM

I did find something called a "direct Force" and its definition is below.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99x79.htm

Quote:
A direct force is a force between things that are touching. If you take a balloon and bop somebody on the head with it, the force between the balloon and the head is direct.


I found a few more to work with
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00148.htm
Quote:
What is an easy way for second graders to understand the conceptual difference between momentum and force.

Replies:
Force makes momentum change. Mathematically, the force on an object is equal to the rate at which the object's momentum changes.

Tim Mooney

Not an easy concept to convey to students especially at young age. You might try the following analogy: Acceleration is the rate of change (time) of velocity. This is simple to explain using the concept of acceleration in an automobile. Analogously, force is the rate of change of momentum.

Harold Myron

Force is how hard you push or pull on an object. Momentum relates more to how hard it is to stop an object from moving. A 10mph bowling ball is much more difficult to stop than a 10mph ping-pong ball. The bowling ball has more momentum.

Momentum is within an object, carried with the object. Force is between objects. Momentum is like what the object has in its bank account. Force is like giving some of this momentum to another object every second they are in contact. I use "bank account" rather than "wallet" because a bank account balance can be negative. It allows momentum to have direction.

Kenneth Mellendorf


there is something to this , even in the replies above.

Force makes momentum change
Acceleration is the rate of change (time) of velocity
force is the rate of change of momentum
Force is how hard you push or pull on an object
Momentum relates more to how hard it is to stop an object from moving
--------------------------------------
Momentum relates more to how hard it is to stop an object from moving

what he has said is that momentum is the amount of force
that you need to stop an object.

-------------------
A 10mph bowling ball is much more difficult to stop than a 10mph ping-pong ball. The bowling ball has more momentum.

why didnt he use the word FORCE?
why did he use the word momentum?

could it be that the bowling balls momentum is a force that is the product of the bowling balls mass x its velocity?

notice below where the sentence says 10 mph
it doesnt say 10 mph/h
so he is obviously referring to the product of the
bowling balls mass x its velocity.

A 10mph bowling ball is much more difficult to stop
you would use a force to stop the bowling ball wouldnt you?

and the force he is describing using would be the 10 mph ping pong ball.

notice again the sentence below says 10 mph referring to the ping pong ball.

and he is using the 10 mph ping pong ball as a force obviously!!!

A 10mph bowling ball is much more difficult to stop than a 10mph ping-pong ball.

Force is how hard you push or pull on an object. Momentum relates more to how hard it is to stop an object from moving. A 10mph bowling ball is much more difficult to stop than a 10mph ping-pong ball. The bowling ball has more momentum.

Force is how hard you push or pull on an object

notice above that he says force is how hard you push or pull on an object.

it does not mention distance , speed , acceleration , time , direction , etc ...etc ...etc ...etc ...etc ...etc ...


Momentum is within an object, carried with the object. Force is between objects. Momentum is like what the object has in its bank account. Force is like giving some of this momentum to another object every second they are in contact. I use "bank account" rather than "wallet" because a bank account balance can be negative. It allows momentum to have direction.

Momentum is within an object
carried with the object
Momentum is like what the object has in its bank account
I use "bank account" rather than "wallet" because a bank account balance can be negative. It allows momentum to have direction.


Force is between objects
Force is like giving some of this momentum to another object every second they are in contact.


Momentum is within an object
carried with the object
Momentum is like what the object has in its bank account

I would have to say that what is has in its bank account is force.

after reflection on this matter I believe we dont need to use a different word , we only need to redefine the meanings of the words we already use.

and I would have to say that
p=mv
means
the force of momentum = mv

and I can say things like

the momentum force of the 100 kg mass that enters the turn
at a velocity of 40 m/s = 4000 kg m/s

it only makes sence because that is the amount of force that the turn would feel if the 100 kg mass were to collide with the turn at a velocity of 40 m/s during a time of 1 second.

100 kg x 40 m/s( applied in one second ) = 4000 kg m/s/s = 40N force

Quote:
then tell me what is a unit of momentum.
unit kgm/s, or, equivalently, Ns


the turn does not know the rate of acceleration that the 100 kg mass was being accelerated at.

and the mass is no longer being accelerated as it enters the turn.

as a mass gains velocity its momentum increases so it can build up a great amount of momentum , and by doing so a great amount of momentum force is also built up.

so the mass hits the turn with all the force it has in its momentum account.

f=ma

what does the above really mean?
break it down

f = force
m = mass
a = acceleration

the 100 kg mass has an acceleration of 0.8 m/s/s

if we only use the mass x the rate of acceleration of the mass to calculate the impact force of the collision we get

f=ma
force N = 100 kg x 0.8 m/s/s
80N

but if we only use the mass x the velocity of the mass to calculate the impact force of the collision we get

f=mv
force N = 100 kg x 40 m/s (applied for 1 second)
4000N

we may need to re-invent a physics math that makes sence.

f=mvt

force = mass x velocity x time

like the pipe

applying a 4000N force for 50 seconds

f=mvt=200000N
and applying that force in the positive direction
f=m(+v)t=+200000N
or
f=m(-v)t=-200000N

so much simpler.

and gives the same result.

then we could do a one liner such as

f=(m1(v1)t1)+(m2(v2)t2)

where

m1 = 200kg
v1 = 40 m/s
t1 = 50 seconds
m2 = 1000 kg
v2 = 4 m/s
t2 = 50 seconds

f=(+400000N ) + (-200000N)
f=+200000N


or we could just use one of your springs to travel to other galaxies with.

Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/21/11 05:37 PM

If, instead of bopping the person, you let the air out of the balloon, such that the person feels the force of the air on her/his face, is that still a direct force?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/21/11 06:08 PM

youll have to ask kallog about that , I no longer understand what a force is , or how to communicate things that should have a force associated with it due to its movement.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/22/11 12:57 AM

Originally Posted By: paul

maybe we should use dyne as our force because we are not affected by earths gravity in space , in fact lets move the

The SI definition of the newton is exactly what you want -
"the force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one meter per second squared".


Quote:

the reason I reason the above is because at impact the
product of the impacting objects mass x its velocity is the force that another object will feel. so it does not matter

How many times do I have to tell you that acceleration is not the same a velocity? The product of a mass and a velocity is not a force! To experience a net force it must accelerate, and it must accelerate at the same time as the force is being applied, not immediately beforehand.

What this means is the force depends on how quickly the object slows down when it hits something. That's the acceleration you can use to determine the force by F=ma. But it's also difficult to calculate, and it varies with time - as I've mentioned before.




Quote:

what the impacting objects rate of acceleration was before the impact.

Not relevant to the force of the impact.


Quote:

a object with a mass of 1 kg and a velocity of 10 m/s strikes a wall with a force of 1 kdf

Most of the time that will be wrong. If you put a force meter on the wall, you'll find the force is usually not 1kdf. Did you completely ignore my last message? The force of the impact depends on the deformation of the objects - ie the materials they're made from.

Quote:

this way I can use the word force while trying to discuss what were trying to discuss.

What you call "force" above is effectively "impulse" (apart from the wrong units). If you want to use it, call it impulse because it's not a force. And use the correct units. Multiplying kg by m/s always gives kg.m/s, which is a unit of impulse.


Quote:

the product of the masses mass x its velocity = mv

That's it's momentum. If you're talking about the collision, and v is the relative velocity immediately before, and the object stops, then it's the impulse. I'm pretty sure you mean impulse.


Quote:

a = the product of the masses mass x its velocity / Mass

That's a velocity, not an acceleration. Calling it "a" will be endlessly confusing. Call it v or v_mass or whatever distinguishes it from other velocities.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/22/11 01:11 AM

Originally Posted By: paul

the 100 kg mass has an acceleration of 0.8 m/s/s

if we only use the mass x the rate of acceleration of the mass to calculate the impact force of the collision we get

f=ma
force N = 100 kg x 0.8 m/s/s
80N

That's correct, as long as it's accelerating at 0.8m/s^2 _during the collision_. However it's not necessarily doing that in our pipe.




Paul, you have to include units in calculations, otherwise the results are automatically wrong no matter what names you call things. Eg:

2kg * 5s = 10kg.s.
It can never equal 10 kg.m or 10 N/foot or anything which isn't equal to 10 kg.s.

2 jabdabs * 5 yibyobs = 10 jabdab yibyobs.

2kg * 5m/s = 10 kg.m/s.
It can never equal 10 kg.m/s/s or 10N or 10dynes or anything that isn't equal to 10kgm/s. It does however equal 10Ns because 1Ns = 1 kgm/s.

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/22/11 04:32 AM

Quote:
Force is not momentum. Velocity is not acceleration. Let's find its momentum after 2 seconds:
p=mv
p=ma*t
1000000 x .00004 x 2 = 80Ns

Let's find its momentum after 1000 seconds:
p=mv
p=ma*t
1000000 x .00004 x 1000 = 40,000Ns


how long is the spring your using kallog?

because even if its 1000000 km long and you only compress it to 40N , 40N is all you can get out of it.

its just like compressing air into a air cylinder.

so when you say 1000 seconds it must be pretty long because its acceleration is only .00004 m/s/s

from what I can tell its 20 meters long.

if you applied a force of 40N over a distance of 20 meters to compress the spring.

or if you compress the spring in only 1 second using a force of 40N

then you can only get 40N out of it no matter how long it takes for the spring to expand.

so the spring expanded for a distance of 20 meters and then the solar sail just free floats.

because the spring is only 20 meters long.

so how did you end up with 40000N?

is it because the spring requires more force than 40N to compress?

perhaps it requires 40N per second if you compress it for 1000 seconds.

the above is why we shouldnt use momentum.

from now on I will use push and pull

to avoid the things that just dont make any sence to me.

a 40 kg push
a 40 kg / sec push

a 40 kg pull
a 40 kg / sec pull

replacing the word force with the word push or pull

so that I can say something like the following.

the 10 kg mass hit the wall at a velocity of 2 m/s with a push of 20 kg m/s.

the mass has a push of 50 kg m/s

the mass is accelerated to a velocity of 10 m/s/s
by a push of 500 kg m/s

push = mass x acceleration

500P = 50 kg x 10 m/s/s

push and pull replacing both force and momentum.



Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/22/11 05:27 AM

Originally Posted By: paul

because even if its 1000000 km long and you only compress it to 40N , 40N is all you can get out of it.

Yes but that doesn't stop it gaining a lot of momentum (and speed). We must be talking about different things. In my world if you push something frictionless, it accelerates. And it keeps on accelerating as long as you keep pushing it. It doesn't matter if you're wearing spongey gloves or you're holding a spring, you still push it, and it still keeps getting faster and faster as long as you keep pushing it.


Here I've replaced your "push" with the conventional words having the same meaning:


the 10 kg mass hit the wall at a velocity of 2 m/s with a push/impulse of 20 kg m/s.

the mass has a push/momentum of 50 kg m/s

the mass is accelerated to a velocity of 10 m/s/s
by a push/impulse of 500 kg m/s

push/force = mass x acceleration

500P/N = 50 kg x 10 m/s/s

push and pull replacing both force and momentum inconsistently.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/22/11 05:58 PM

OK, momentum is not a force.
impulse is not a force either.
the only thing that is a force is a force of course.

so after each 100 kg mass has been accelerated for 1000 meters at a rate of acceleration of .8 m/s/s and has reached a velocity of 40 m/s during a time of 50 seconds.

the following is true after each mass has traveled 1000 meters just before it enters the turn.

each 100 kg mass has a momentum of
p=mv
-4000 Ns = 100 kg x -40 m/s

and

each 100 kg mass has a force that it can apply to an object of
f=ma
-80N=100 kg x -.8 m/s/s

because momentum is not a force it cannot push an object.

so the only force that can push against the pipe in the (-)
direction is the force that is the product of the 100 kg mass
times its acceleration.
which is -80N

correct?


Quote:
the 100 kg mass has an acceleration of 0.8 m/s/s

if we only use the mass x the rate of acceleration of the mass to calculate the impact force of the collision we get

f=ma
force N = 100 kg x 0.8 m/s/s
80N


That's correct, as long as it's accelerating at 0.8m/s^2 _during the collision_. However it's not necessarily doing that in our pipe.


That's correct

Quote:
as long as it's accelerating at 0.8m/s^2 _during the collision


as the mass passes through the turn at 40 m/s it undergoes a constant acceleration , it maintains this constant acceleration through the turn because it maintains a constant angular velocity.
the reason it maintains a constant acceleration is because it must be accelerated towards the center of the turn as it passes through the turn , this acceleration is called angular acceleration.


The product of a mass and a velocity is not a force!

How many times do I have to tell you that acceleration is not the same a velocity?


that would be a force of 40N.s

Ararrh13!#@ Force does not have units of Ns!!!! That's momentum.

What is an easy way for second graders to understand the conceptual difference between momentum and force.

Replies:
Force makes momentum change. Mathematically, the force on an object is equal to the rate at which the object's momentum changes.

Tim Mooney

Not an easy concept to convey to students especially at young age. You might try the following analogy: Acceleration is the rate of change (time) of velocity. This is simple to explain using the concept of acceleration in an automobile. Analogously, force is the rate of change of momentum.

Harold Myron

Force is how hard you push or pull on an object. Momentum relates more to how hard it is to stop an object from moving. A 10mph bowling ball is much more difficult to stop than a 10mph ping-pong ball. The bowling ball has more momentum.

Momentum is within an object, carried with the object. Force is between objects. Momentum is like what the object has in its bank account. Force is like giving some of this momentum to another object every second they are in contact. I use "bank account" rather than "wallet" because a bank account balance can be negative. It allows momentum to have direction.

Kenneth Mellendorf



since the 100 kg mass does not loose any of its velocity as it travels through the turn then it hasnt given any of its momentum to the pipe.

because it still has its mass and it has 40 m/s velocity
only in a new direction.
but mostly because its momentum cannot push the pipe with force because momentum is not a force.

p=mv
+4000Ns = 100 kg x +40 m/s

all it has done is gone through a turn.

the only force that could cause the pipe to reduce its acceleration is the force available from the 100 kg mass.

and the 100 kg mass only has a -80N force as it enters the turn and collides with the pipe

however there are 100 masses supplying a +80N force to the pipe while they are accelerating and decelerating durring the 1 second that the 100 kg mass is applying its -80N force.

thats +8000N vs -80N




there will be a force felt by the turn as the mass passes through the turn and that force is the centripetal force
which is a force that is directed towards the center of the turn.
Quote:
Centripetal force (from Latin centrum "center" and petere "to seek") is a force that makes a body follow a curved path


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force

fc=mv^2/r
the radius of the turn is 12.73 meters

fc = 100 kg x (40 m/s * 40 m/s)/r
fc = 100 kg x 1600 / r
fc = 160000 /12.73
fc = 12568N

but that force is not an outward force that would cause the
pipe to decelerate.

then there is the fictitious centrifugal force that is supposed to be an outward force.

however since it is a fictitious force we will not concern ourselves with it.

there is one thing to consider also , as the mass passes through the middle of the turn its velocity is directed at a 90 degree angle from the center of the turn as in the below illustration.



so as the mass passes through any part of the turn the -80N force that it can use to push the pipe with in the (-) direction is always at a 90 degree angle to the center of the turn and only momentarily toward the (-) direction as it first enters the turn.

the mass that is passing through the turn is undergoing centripetal acceleration , this acceleration is toward the center of the turn , not away from the center of the turn.

ac = (v^2)/r
ac = (40 m/s x 40 m/s)/12.73
ac = 125.678 m/s/s

the mass accelerating towards the center of the turn at a acceleration of 125.678 m/s/s times it mass = its force.
f=ma
f=100 kg x 125.679 m/s/s = 12567.8N

seems that that was the centripetal force ?

yes , it was..
here it is again.
fc=mv^2/r
fc = 100 kg x (40 m/s * 40 m/s)/r
fc = 100 kg x 1600 / r
fc = 160000 /12.73
fc = 12568N

and all thats left is friction.

















Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/23/11 01:13 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
each 100 kg mass has a force that it can apply to an object of
f=ma
-80N=100 kg x -.8 m/s/s

That -80N is the force applied by the accelerator to cause the -0.8m/s^2 acceleration.


Quote:

so the only force that can push against the pipe in the (-)
direction is the force that is the product of the 100 kg mass
times its acceleration.
which is -80N

correct?

No, that's the force pushing against the mass while it's accelerating.




Quote:
[accelerated towards the center of the turn as it passes through the turn , this acceleration is called angular acceleration.

The direction from the mass to the center obviously changes depending on the position of the mass in the turn, so the direction of the acceleration changes, so the acceleration isn't constant.

In half-circle turn, the acceleration can't be constant for that reason, but we can always make the "turn" using some mechanism that applies a constant force and causes a constant acceleration.



Quote:

since the 100 kg mass does not loose any of its velocity as it travels

Its velocity changes at it travels through the turn. Its speed does not. The change in velocity means it must transfer momentum with the pipe.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/23/11 01:22 AM

Quote:
That -80N is the force applied by the accelerator to cause the -0.8m/s^2 acceleration.


well then , OK.
so there is no force that the mass can apply to the turn as the mass enters the turn.

because the mass is no longer accelerating as it enters the turn.

it just slips into a hole.
it doesnt really have any weight because there is very little
gravity in space.

but there would be some friction as the mass presses against the turn going through the turn.

we already know that momentum is not a force and a force is required to push an object.

the mass does have momentum , but momentum is not force.

I have covered the centripetal force.
which is not a outward force.


and the centripetal acceleration.
which is not a outward acceleration.



Quote:
the mass that is passing through the turn is undergoing centripetal acceleration , this acceleration is toward the center of the turn , not away from the center of the turn.


centripetal acceleration is constant acceleration btw.
because the mass is constantly accelerating towards the center.

the centripetal force (center seeking ) = fc = 12568N

so where does this leave us?

heres a good calculator
http://www.calculatoredge.com/new/centripetal.htm#velocity

Quote:
Its velocity changes as it travels through the turn. Its speed does not. The change in velocity means it must transfer momentum with the pipe.


all of the below is in the same context.
--------------------------------------------
since the 100 kg mass does not loose any of its velocity as it travels through the turn then it hasnt given any of its momentum to the pipe.

because it still has its mass and it has 40 m/s velocity
only in a new direction
.
--------------------------------------------

Quote:
transfer momentum with the pipe


how is that accomplished?





Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/23/11 04:50 AM

Key points:
- Velocity includes both speed and direction.
- Acceleration occurs if either or both parts of velocity change.
- Acceleration requires a force.



Originally Posted By: paul

so there is no force that the mass can apply to the turn as the mass enters the turn.

because the mass is no longer accelerating as it enters the turn.

It is accelerating in the turn. And therefore it is applying a force to the pipe.

We know it's accelerating because its velocity is changing.

As you surely know, velocity includes speed and direction. If any part of the velocity changes then it's accelerating. Obviously direction is changing, therefore it's accelerating, therefore it's applying a force to the pipe.




Quote:

centripetal acceleration is constant acceleration btw.
because the mass is constantly accelerating towards the center.

"towards the center" only sounds like a constant direction because of English. Obviously the direction of the center keeps changing. So the direction of the acceleration is also changing.




Quote:

since the 100 kg mass does not loose any of its velocity as it travels through the turn then it hasnt given any of its momentum to the pipe.

Its velocity does change. So it does transfer momentum with the pipe.

Quote:
only in a new direction

Exactly! The change of means the velocity is changing. That's because direction is part of velocity.


Note: I use the word "obviously" to show that an idea can easily be seen from common sense. If you can't see it then you must be looking for the wrong thing. In other words, if it's not obvious to you, then you're probably overthinking it or misunderstanding me.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/23/11 02:31 PM

Quote:
It is accelerating in the turn.


what force from what object is being used to cause its momentum to change that causes it to accelerate?

it cant supply the force to change its momentum so it cant change its velocity itself so it cant accelerate itself.

wasnt it newton who said that an object will remain in a straight line unless a external force is applied to change its direction.

Quote:
We know it's accelerating because its velocity is changing.


as far as I can tell we havent agreed on a force that will cause its velocity to change , therefore we dont know that its accelerating.

Quote:
As you surely know, velocity includes speed and direction. If any part of the velocity changes then it's accelerating. Obviously direction is changing, therefore it's accelerating, therefore it's applying a force to the pipe.


in order for the mass to change velocity there must be a external force that is applied to to the mass to cause the mass to change its direction.

so , where does this force come from and what amount of force is it , and in which direction is it comming from?

you say the mass is applying a force to the pipe.
but the mass only has momentum , and momentum is not a force.

the pipe has a force because of its mass x its acceleration
f=ma
1000kg x 8 m/s/s = 8000N
the 8000N is a force that can apply itself to the mass.

but the mass does not have a force that it can apply to the pipe , it only has momentum.

p=mv
4000Ns = 100kg x 40 m/s
the 4000Ns momentum is not a force that can apply itself to the pipe.

so where is this force that you are speaking of comming from?

the mass
or
the pipe

the mass has no force it can apply.
so wouldnt it be the pipe because it has a force?

Quote:
"towards the center" only sounds like a constant direction because of English. Obviously the direction of the center keeps changing. So the direction of the acceleration is also changing.


the centripetal force is in a constant direction.
and that direction is towards the center.
the direction of the force never changes it is always towards the center.
so the direction of the acceleration is always towards the center.
when the mass changes its direction it changes it towards the center.

when the mass changes its direction towards the center it is accelerated towards the center.

so the change in direction and the centripetal acceleration is always towards the center.

Quote:
Its velocity does change. So it does transfer momentum with the pipe.


we dont know that yet , we havent agreed on what would cause its velocity to change.
some force has got to be applied to the mass to make it change its velocity.

so wheres the force?

Quote:
Exactly! The change of means the velocity is changing


velocity is not a force.

Quote:
That's because direction is part of velocity.


direction is not a force.

and mass is not a force.

so where is the force?

Quote:
Note: I use the word "obviously" to show that an idea can easily be seen from common sense.


is that a theory you have?

common sence has nothing to do with math.

Quote:
If you can't see it then you must be looking for the wrong thing. In other words, if it's not obvious to you, then you're probably overthinking it or misunderstanding me.


in math you need elements to include in equations.

you cant just use your common sence in an equation.

it does not matter if something is obvious or not.

common sense and thinking can not be used to cause a mass to have a change in momentum or velocity or direction or acceleration.

but a applied force can , wheres the force?

heres a pretty good definition of force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force
Quote:
In physics, a force is any influence that causes an object to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape. Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or pull that can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate, or which can cause a flexible object to deform. A force has both magnitude and direction, making it a vector quantity. Newton's second law, F=ma, was originally formulated in slightly different, but equivalent terms: the original version states that the net force acting upon an object is equal to the rate at which its momentum changes.


so from what I can see what we have is the following.

the force and momentum associated with the pipe that will be involved in the collision.

note: the pipe would normaly have an acceleration of
8 m/s/s because there are 100 100kg masses being accelerated and decelerated every second and the force that accelerates and decelerates the 100 masses
is f=ma = (100 masses x 100 kg) x .8 m/s/s = 8000N

so the force that the pipe could normaly apply to an object would be 8000N after 101 seconds.

so the pipe would normaly have a momentum of

p=mv = 1000 kg x +80 m/s = +8000Ns

but thats not what we have because there is a
single 100 kg mass going through the turn each second.

the force and momentum associated with the 100 kg mass that will be involved in the collision.


mass momentum = p=mv = 100 kg x -40 m/s = -4000Ns

mass force = f=ma =100 kg x .8 m/s/s = 80N










Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/24/11 02:37 AM

Paul, spot the difference:

A) Momentum is not force.

B) An object with momentum cannot use its momentum to apply a force to something else.



Quote:

the centripetal force is in a constant direction.
and that direction is towards the center.
the direction of the force never changes it is always towards the center.


Don't you remember I used the word "obviously"? I explained that you can see it from common sense. You didn't see it, that means you misunderstood the whole idea of what I was saying.

Let me help. Drive a car around a round-about. Which direction is the center? Sometimes it's north, sometimes it's south, sometimes it's east, etc. It keeps changing as you go round.

The fact that you didn't try to see that shows you're not interested in working out anything or showing anything about nature. You just want to be contrary. But every trick you try fails because you ignore words you don't understand, so your comments don't relate to what I said.

You might wonder why we can't say its "constantly to the left" or "constantly to the right" of the driver. How about you work that one out? There's a good reason why we don't measure the direction from the point of view of the driver. Google "inertial frame". No, you'll never work it out, so just ignore this whole direction of the center thing.


This fundamental misunderstanding about the meaning of velocity seems to be the root of many of your problems. Why don't you just try to understand it? There are umpteen high school physics tutorials on the internet.

Maybe part of the confusion comes from the same operator symbols being used:

v2 - v1 The difference between two vectors
m2 - m1 The difference between two scalars

The "-" symbol in these two expressions has two different meanings! We reuse the same symbol and even the same word for two different operations. We call them both subtraction but they aren't the same.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/24/11 03:38 AM

Originally Posted By: kallog

A) Momentum is not force.

correct

Originally Posted By: kallog

B) An object with momentum cannot use its momentum to apply a force to something else.

correct , because is has no force it only has momentum , because its not accelerating.
if the object were accelerating then it could apply a force to another object.

Originally Posted By: kallog

What about the masses in the 1st turn? They apply a force pushing the pipe backwards.

I've already demonstrated to your satisfaction that a mass changing direction will transfer double it's initial momentum to the pipe.


that was before you convinced me that an object that only has momentum cannot apply a force to another object.

there is no force available for a push , because the mass
only has momentum.

they only have momentum , there is no force that is causing them to accelerate through the turn so they dont have increasing angular acceleration so theres no force due to there mass x their acceleration that they can apply to the pipe.

if there was a force causing them to accelerate through the turn then their velocity would increase through the turn.

and when they exited the turn their velocity would be higher than 40 m/s

they only have mass and velocity.





Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/24/11 11:19 AM

Paul, you still think velocity is the same as speed.

Why?

Haven't I explained the difference many times?

Haven't you ever bothered to look it up?

Most of what I've said in this thread will be meaningless to a person who doesn't know what velocity and acceleration are. Why don't you just tell me when you don't understand me?
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/24/11 11:23 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
that was before you convinced me that an object that only has momentum cannot apply a force to another object.


You so badly want to say F=mv that when I told you it's wrong you threw out the baby with the bathwater.

F=ma can predict the force the mass applies to the pipe.

But you can't use F=ma unless you know what acceleration means. You don't, so that formula is useless to you.

Wait! Maybe there is hope! Here you show you understand that the object is accelerating through the turn. I don't know why you changed your mind in the last message. This acceleration is how you can find the force. Which I think you also calculated!
Quote:
the mass that is passing through the turn is undergoing centripetal acceleration , this acceleration is toward the center of the turn , not away from the center of the turn.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/24/11 04:46 PM

Originally Posted By: kallog
You so badly want to say F=mv that when I told you it's wrong you threw out the baby with the bathwater.


I must admit thats pretty much it.
LOL

but now Im really convinced that you were right.
you must have a force that applies to a object to change a objects momentum.
Originally Posted By: kallog

F=ma can predict the force the mass applies to the pipe.

no it cant , because the mass has no force it can apply to the pipe.
f=ma means the mass must be accelerating.
the mass is not accelerating.
just beforce the mass strikes the turn it is not accelerating
therefore it cannot apply a force to the turn.
it only has momentum.
and momentum is not a force.
Quote:

But you can't use F=ma unless you know what acceleration means. You don't, so that formula is useless to you.

from the looks of the above and the remainder of this post its you who doesnt fully understand acceleration.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Paul, you still think velocity is the same as speed.

Why?


dont you know that you can have an increase in velocity without having a change in direction?

when calculating angular acceleration you need to use the torque that is applied to push the object around in the circle.

to do that you must first find the torque.

t = r x f

t = torque
r = radius
f = force

DO YOU SEE VELOCITY IN THE ABOVE EQUATION?
DO YOU SEE FORCE IN THE ABOVE EQUATION?
notice the torque equation uses force , but theres no force applied to the mass that is pushing it around the in the circular path.

heres what I said.

Quote:
and when they exited the turn their velocity would be higher than 40 m/s

they only have mass and velocity.


is 60 m/s higher than 40 m/s?


Im sure your only picking more straws because I was explaining that the velocity of the mass would not increase.

and heres what Im going to make with all of them.



and that means that the velocity of the mass would not increase in the direction of its circular path.

and a velocity increase would be required for its angular acceleration to increase.

the torque equation is above.

angular acceleration = T/I
a = angular acceleration
T = torque
I = moment of Inertia

DO YOU SEE VELOCITY IN THE ABOVE EQUATION?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT A FORCE IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A TORQUE?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT A TORQUE IS REQUIRED TO HAVE ANGULAR ACCELERATION?

there is no force being applied to the mass as it follows the circular path so there is no torque that you can use in the above equation.

in other words its not being accelerated by a force in the direction of its circular path so it does not have angular acceleration , if you would notice I was talking about the angular acceleration of the mass which requires a increase in torque.

Originally Posted By: paul
they only have momentum , there is no force that is causing them to accelerate through the turn so they dont have increasing angular acceleration so theres no force due to there mass x their acceleration that they can apply to the pipe.


there is no increase in torque so there cannot be a increase in angular acceleration.

Quote:
Wait! Maybe there is hope! Here you show you understand that the object is accelerating through the turn. I don't know why you changed your mind in the last message. This acceleration is how you can find the force. Which I think you also calculated!


Quote:
Quote:
the mass that is passing through the turn is undergoing centripetal acceleration , this acceleration is toward the center of the turn , not away from the center of the turn.


kallog , a toward the center of the turn acceleration
does not mean that it is accelerating along the circular path.

angular acceleration = along the circular path

not towards the center of the circle.

it is accelerating towards the center of the circular path.
so I was right when I said that it has centripetal acceleration.

and I was right when I said that it has no angular acceleration.
it has angular velocity but its angular velocity is not increasing , its constant angular velocity is 40 m/s throughout the entire turn because we are using frictionless turns.

note: the only way that I can use the correct symbolism to prevent you from satisfying your straw picking habit would be to use 180 different angles in a 180 degree turn.

so I only used 40 m/s as the constant angular velocity through the turn.

I supposed I could have used the following
as the mass traverses the 180 degree turn from
40 m/s 0 degrees to 40 m/s 180 degrees
I was just thinking that you could follow that and I would not have write so much descriptive text to enable you to
understand.

heres a visual tool you can use to understand the concept of centripetal acceleration.

the blue dotted semi circle is the circular path that the mass follows , its not the direction of acceleration.

the direction of acceleration is the straight blue dotted line.

which may be where you are getting confused.



heres one that illustrates the direction of the centripetal force that causes the centripetal acceleration one that you might find less challenging to understand.



Quote:
This acceleration is how you can find the force. Which I think you also calculated!


you can calculate the force that the pipe applies to the mass
that accelerates the mass towards the center.
but the mass has no force it can apply to the pipe that can be used in a calculation.
the mass only has momentum.
the pipe has both momentum and force.

but maybe you cannot comprehend such complicated things as you have demonstrated in the past.

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/24/11 11:34 PM

from what I can tell.

the pipe has force of 8000N
and a momentum of +4000Ns

the mass has no force
and a momentum of -4000Ns

so what will happen when the two collide is their momentums
cancel each other out.

and the pipe continues with a force of 8000N

but your welcome to pick some more straws , and I know you will.




Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/25/11 01:14 AM

Originally Posted By: paul

you must have a force that applies to a object to change a objects momentum.

Yipee.

Quote:

f=ma means the mass must be accelerating.
the mass is not accelerating.

The mass is accelerating. You said it yourself. "centripetal acceleration". That's acceleration towards the center of the turn. That's the acceleration that requires a force. Forget the accelerator, that's already stopped acting, as you said.

Quote:

dont you know that you can have an increase in velocity without having a change in direction?

Indeed you can.
You can also have a change in velocity without a change in speed. That's the point you keep missing.

Quote:

when calculating angular acceleration you need to use the

There is no angular acceleration in the turn! That's nothing to do with this machine. "angular acceleration" is a totally different concept from "centripetal acceleration". The different words indicate there is a different meaning.



Quote:
and when they exited the turn their velocity would be higher than 40 m/s

You're overthinking something trivial, but it's leading you to a completely wrong conclusion.


Before the turn, v=-40m/s
After the turn v=40m/s
Obviously (just look at the numbers), those two velocities are not the same. When velocity changes the thing accelerates.

I agree the speed is the same, 40m/s all through the turn and out the other side. But acceleration can occur without any change in speed. And in this case it does, with a force too according to F=ma.

Again, google "acceleration" and "velocity" if you're still unsure.


Quote:

you can calculate the force that the pipe applies to the mass
that accelerates the mass towards the center.
but the mass has no force it can apply to the pipe that can be used in a calculation.
the mass only has momentum.
the pipe has both momentum and force.

I thought you were being sarcastic with "it has only momentum so it can't apply any force". Now you seem to be almost serious. This is where you can simply throw a book at the wall and see that it deforms, and releases energy, and stops flying. All things that show a force was applied.

While the book is flying it's not applying any force, but as soon as it hits the wall it starts accelerating. The same F=ma again.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/25/11 01:19 AM

Summary:

There is no angular acceleration in the turn.

There is no change in speed in the turn.

There is a change in velocity in the turn.

There is centripetal acceleration in the turn.

The pipe applies a force to the mass to cause that centripetal acceleration. (F=ma)

The mass applies a matching reaction force to the pipe (Newton's 1st law).


If you disagree, look up "acceleration" and "velocity".
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/25/11 01:28 AM

Originally Posted By: paul

the pipe has force of 8000N
and a momentum of +4000Ns

the mass has no force
and a momentum of -4000Ns


I should have picked up this misconception earlier. Below is where you made the mistake leading to the meaningless claims above. The explanations you quoted give a more correct picture.

Quote:

Force is between objects
Force is like giving some of this momentum to another object every second they are in contact.

Momentum is within an object
carried with the object
Momentum is like what the object has in its bank account

Paul: I would have to say that what is has in its bank account is force.


"between objects" means you need two objects for a force to exist between them. It's not something carried by objects. It just appears when they interact. It's not conserved - a small slow moving object can apply a huge force, or a big fast object can be stopped by a tiny force. It all depends on the details of the collision.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/25/11 01:28 AM

Quote:
There is no angular acceleration in the turn.

Quote:
There is no change in speed in the turn.


finaly.

I didnt write the below.

Quote:
Force is between objects
Force is like giving some of this momentum to another object every second they are in contact.

Momentum is within an object
carried with the object
Momentum is like what the object has in its bank account


at least now you understand that there is no angular acceleration in the turn.

which is what I've been trying to communicate to you.


Quote:
the pipe has force of 8000N
and a momentum of +4000Ns

the mass has no force
and a momentum of -4000Ns


I should have picked up this misconception earlier.


theres no misconception at all.

the pipe has a mass of 1000 kg and there are 100 100kg masses being accelerated by the pipe ...

each of the 100 kg masses is being accelerated by a force of 80N

50 accelerating
50 decelerating

80N x 100 = 8000N

the pipe can apply a force of 8000N to another object.

the pipe has a mass of 1000 kg and a velocity of +4 m/s

p=mv = 1000 kg x +4 m/s = +4000Ns


the mass has no force being applied to it.
so the mass has no force it can apply.

the mass has a velocity of -40 m/s and a mass of 100 kg

p=mv = 100 kg x -40 m/s = -4000Ns

if you cant understand the above then we might as well just quit trying.

if all your going to do is take things out of context then the same applies.

I say the pipe has more force being applied to it in the (+) direction than any and all other influences that are in the (-) direction.

and the above causes the pipe to accelerate.

I have shown my reasons why I think this , if you disagree then show your reasons.


Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/25/11 02:25 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
finaly.

Yes, finally I wrote it in enough different ways that you understood one of them. But we're not going to make any progress until you actually know what "acceleration" and "velocity" mean. Without knowing what acceleration is you can't use F=ma. Without knowing what velocity is you can't use p=mv or find a from the rate of change of v. This is why you're getting wrong results.

Quote:

the pipe can apply a force of 8000N to another object.


No. This is a 3rd misunderstanding (after v and a) that you need to solve before you can understand the system.

The force used to accelerate something doesn't determine the force it can apply to something else.

Eg: Accelerate a truck to 60mph in 20s then either:

A) Shift into neutral and let it coast to a stop.
B) Crash it into a cliff.

Do both cases apply the same force to the environment?


Extra question:

Change the 20s to 2 hours. Does that change the force in A or B?
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/25/11 02:35 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
the mass has no force being applied to it.
so the mass has no force it can apply.

Wrong. The mass can apply a force. The mass cannot apply a force while no force is applied to it. However it can always apply a force sometime in the future, for example when it touches something. This is common sense Paul. A moving object will apply a force when it hits something.

I've already completely solve the system for 1 mass. You haven't even done that. Your reasoning contains many mistakes, which I keep pointing out, such as the one above.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/25/11 06:18 PM

Quote:
The force used to accelerate something doesn't determine the force it can apply to something else.


yes it does.

the pipe has a constant force being applied to it.
even during the collision!!!
and when it comes in contact with something else it will apply that force to it.

if the 1000 kg pipe comes in contact with another 1000 kg
object the force of +8000N that is accelerating the 1000 kg pipe will apply itself to the other 1000 kg object.

so that both 1000 kg masses will be being accelerated by the +8000N force.

I believe that you are thinking about the momentum of the pipe , momentum isnt force.

notice that I wasnt talking about momentum , I was talking about force only.

here it is again...

Quote:
theres no misconception at all.

the pipe has a mass of 1000 kg and there are 100 100kg masses being accelerated by the pipe ...

each of the 100 kg masses is being accelerated by a force of 80N

50 accelerating
50 decelerating

80N x 100 = 8000N

the pipe can apply a force of 8000N to another object.


now below you are again confussing force with momentum.

Quote:
However it can always apply a force sometime in the future, for example when it touches something. This is common sense Paul. A moving object will apply a force when it hits something.


no it cant , in order for the mass to apply a force to another object there must be a force being applied to the mass.

f=ma
its
force = mass x acceleration
not
force = mass x velocity

your talking about momentum and momentum is not force.

the mass has momentum but it has no force being applied to it.

and once again common sence cant be used as an element of an equation.

its like using the below elements in a equation.

common sence force = m*v

there no such force as common sense force.

if you dont believe me , perhaps you will believe yourself.
here is a similar situation from post # 40236 that you posted.

Originally Posted By: kallog
mass x velocity does not have units of force (N)


thats because mass x velocity is not force.
its momentum.

you said that sometimes you do a little research before you make post on the web.

maybe its a good time to do a little now before you get too confused.

correcting all of your mistakes is really getting to be a real pain.

so take a day off and do a little research.

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/25/11 07:26 PM

we are discussing the events after 101 seconds.

this will include the 10,100 kg of the 101 100kg masses.

at the start the pipe and the 101 masses have a combined mass of 11,100 kg.

after the first second the pipes mass decreases to 11,000 kg
because 1 of the 100 kg masses is accelerated toward the turn

50 masses are launched before the 1st 100 kg mass enters the turn.

and as the 1st 100 kg mass enters the turn another 100 kg mass is being launched.

the force of 80N applied to the first mass will accelerate the 11,000 kg pipe to an acceleration of .007 m/s/s

at the end of the 1st second the pipe will have a velocity of
+.007 m/s

after each 100 kg mass is launched the total mass of the pipe and masses reduces by 100 kg.

at the end of 50 seconds the pipe has a mass of 6100 kg and it has a velocity of +12.84 m/s !!!

its momentum is 6100 kg x 12.84 m/s = 78,324 Ns

so there are more things to consider than just your inability to understand the difference between force and momentum.

however you should really try to understand that you would really have a hard time stopping or even considerably slowing down a object that has a +78,324Ns momentum
with an object that has a mere -4000Ns momentum.

and that is only after the first 50 seconds.

so before there is any (-) influences that would impede the motion of the pipe.

it already has 78,324 Ns momentum.

and it already has a force being applied to it of
+4000N

looks to me like I just knocked all the legs off of the table that you were using.

and your whole side of the discussion just dissapeared.

Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/25/11 11:14 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
if the 1000 kg pipe comes in contact with another 1000 kg
object the force of +8000N that is accelerating the 1000 kg pipe will apply itself to the other 1000 kg object.


OK, yes. If the objects stick together. If they bounce off (like ours) then the force depends on details of the collision and is not determined only by the 8000N applied force - it can be much higher or lower.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/25/11 11:26 PM

Im glad you said that.

what would happen if a 6100 kg mass that has a momentum
of (+)78,000Ns comes in contact with a 100 kg mass that has a momentum of (-)4000Ns?

would they bounce off of each other?

(+)78,000Ns vs (-)4000Ns = ?

or wouldnt the object with (+)78,000Ns keep going in the same direction and the object with (-)4000Ns bounce off of the object with (+)78,000Ns





Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/25/11 11:26 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
at the end of 50 seconds the pipe has a mass of 6100 kg and it has a velocity of +12.84 m/s !!!

its momentum is 6100 kg x 12.84 m/s = 78,324 Ns

OK. I didn't check the number, but it the reasoning sounds good.

Quote:

however you should really try to understand that you would really have a hard time stopping or even considerably slowing down a object that has a +78,324Ns momentum
with an object that has a mere -4000Ns momentum.


A hard time? We have to transfer -78324Ns of momentum to the pipe to stop it. How much momentum will all those masses give it as they pass through the turn?

Quote:

looks to me like I just knocked all the legs off of the table that you were using.

and your whole side of the discussion just dissapeared.

Have you noticed that you regularly make claims like this? Have you also noticed that in every case you have still been wrong?

You've just shown what happens when you fire 50 masses inside a pipe and they don't hit anything. That part's noncontroversial. The next two stages determine if the pipe keeps going or returns to its starting point. You haven't done them yet.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/25/11 11:28 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
what would happen if a 6100 kg mass that has a momentum
of (+)78,000Ns comes in contact with a 100 kg mass that has a momentum of (-)4000Ns?

would they bounce off of each other?


I don't know! It's your concept. Would they? Do they have elastic ends? Do they have energy absorbing bumpers? Do they somehow fuse together?

If it's an elastic collision like our pipe, then you can work out the resulting velocities (or momentums) with one of the online calculators, or the formula on Wikipedia. It's a bit time consuming to derive.

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/25/11 11:33 PM

Quote:
A hard time? We have to transfer -78324Ns of momentum to the pipe to stop it. How much momentum will all those masses give it as they pass through the turn?


I would say each 100 kg mass would transfer only (-)4000Ns
each second.

Quote:
We have to transfer -78324Ns of momentum to the pipe to stop it.


yes you do !!!
and you cant do that with only (-)4000Ns
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/25/11 11:49 PM

Quote:
then you can work out the resulting velocities (or momentums) with one of the online calculators

https://www.msu.edu/~brechtjo/physics/airTrack/airTrack.html

okay

red cart 6100 kg mass v +12.84 m/s
blue cart 100 kg mass v -40 m/s

results show that the blue cart bounces off of the red cart
the red cart continues in the + direction.

red cart velocity = +11.13 m/s

blue cart velocity = +63.97 m/s

neither cart is traveling in the negative direction.


Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/26/11 04:20 AM

Originally Posted By: paul

red cart 6100 kg mass v +12.84 m/s
blue cart 100 kg mass v -40 m/s
results show that the blue cart bounces off of the red cart
the red cart continues in the + direction.
red cart velocity = +11.13 m/s
blue cart velocity = +63.97 m/s


OK, that's one mass turning around. Now do it for the other 49 masses. See if the red cart changes direction.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/26/11 04:23 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
We have to transfer -78324Ns of momentum to the pipe to stop it.


yes you do !!!
and you cant do that with only (-)4000Ns


Don't we have 50 masses, each with that much momentum?

Even if they just give all their momentum to the pipe, as you repeatedly claimed they would, then it would be enough to turn it around.

Actually I think there might be a mistake in you calculation of the -78324Ns. Did you consider that the pipe is already moving when it accelerates the 2nd mass?
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/26/11 04:30 AM

Here's a simple way to analyse any number of masses doing only one acceleration and the 1st turn. You have to agree to at least this. I realize there's still the 2nd turn or end stop that's not included. But if you don't agree on these two stages we should solve that first.

The system (only accelerator and 1st turn) is actually a rocket firing masses forward (+ve direction) as they come out of the 1st turn and no longer interact with anything.

So it's a rocket firing its engine in the +ve direction. That means it is accelerating in the -ve direction. It makes no difference how the internal details of the engine work. Any rocket will accelerate in the opposite direction to where the engine is pointed.

Right?
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/26/11 07:51 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
red cart 6100 kg mass v +12.84 m/s
blue cart 100 kg mass v -40 m/s

results show that the blue cart bounces off of the red cart
the red cart continues in the + direction.

red cart velocity = +11.13 m/s

blue cart velocity = +63.97 m/s


Hey Paul, there's a dirty little lie hidden in these numbers. That website is obviously operated by me to fool people about how momentum works:

red cart's momentum before:
6100kg * 12.84m/s = 78324 Ns

red cart's momentum after:
6100kg * 11.13m/s = 67893 Ns

Change in momentum:
67893Ns - 78324Ns = -10431Ns

But it was only hit by a cart with 100kg * -40m/s = -4000Ns of momentum!!!!

Impossible!

Can you explain why it gives those results? Do you accept them?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/26/11 02:36 PM

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/26/11 02:42 PM

Quote:
OK, that's one mass turning around. Now do it for the other 49 masses. See if the red cart changes direction.



at 60 seconds the pipe has a mass of 5000 kg
and a velocity of 20.59908 m/s so its momentum is

+102995.4Ns

results are
red cart v = +18.22264549019608 m/s
blue cart v = +78.82172549019607 m/s

now lets do 80 seconds

at 80 seconds the pipe has a mass of 3000 kg
and a velocity of 48.25031 m/s so its momentum is

+144750.934Ns

results are
red cart v = +42.556741612903224 m/s
blue cart v = +130.80705161290322 m/s

now lets do 100 seconds

at 100 seconds the pipe has a mass of 1000 kg
and a velocity of 121.7047 m/s so its momentum is

+121704.74Ns

results are
red cart v = +92.30384545454545 m/s
blue cart v = +254.00854545454547 m/s

note :
I did not subtract or add the resultant velocities of the pipe or the mass and include them for each calculation above
therefore the differences will be extremely different.

ie...the results above wont even touch the true results.
because by decelerating the mass the 4000N I did use will be much greater so the pipe will be accelerating much faster than the above.
which means that the pipe velocity will increase greatly each second.


but I will do that today.

but from the looks of it your going to need a lot of stuff on the spacecraft that uses electricity , because the blue cart has really gained speed through the turn.

perhaps some type of deflector shield and a molecular transporter would consume the extra electricity generated.

and of cource we shouldnt forget the phaser banks and photon torpedoes.

LOL

btw

the wiki web site says that when a more massive body collides with a less massive body the more massive body does not change its velocity.

and the less massive body then has twice the speed of the more massive body less its original speed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

Quote:
Thus the more massive body does not change its velocity, and the less massive body travels at twice the velocity of the more massive body less its own original velocity. Assuming both masses were heading towards each other on impact, the less massive body is now therefore moving in the opposite direction at twice the speed of the more massive body plus its own original speed.


but surely you want something for your -4000Ns momentum influence !! to use to slow or stop the pipe.

but since were using a 100% elastic collision
you cant have anything to use !!!

LOL


resistance is futile
you will be assimilated

Originally Posted By: paul
but I will do that today.


I guess all I have to do is make the 100 kg mass speed twice the speed of the pipe and add its original speed to it as it enters the decelerator.

before each 1 second calculation after the 51st second of course.

and add the extra momentum that the pipe will receive due to the extra speed that the 100 kg mass has after passing through the turn.

thats what I'll do today.

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/26/11 10:11 PM

as far as I can tell , with the use of physics math
the 100 kg mass that has a original speed of 40 m/s will inherit 13.49721 m/s x 2 = 26.99442

for a grand total of 66.99442 m/s speed

so its velocity would be +66.99442 m/s

the following formula is used to find force using
distance , time , momentum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force



distance = 1000 meters
time = 50 seconds
momentum = 100 kg x +66.99442 m/s


momentum = 100 kg x 66.99442 m/s = 6699.442Ns

distance x momentum = 1000 meters x 6699.442Ns = 6699442

distance x time = 1000 meters x 50 seconds = 50,000


F = 6699442 / 50000 = 133.98884N

so during the time period between 51 seconds to 52 seconds the pipe will have a force of
+134N and a force of +4000N causing it to accelerate.

after this second has passed the pipes momentum will become higher than the previous second.

which should cause the next 100 kg mass to have a even higher speed as it leaves the turn.

etc etc etc ,,, bla bla bla...

I'll finish it later , Im trying to put this in a program.


Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/27/11 01:52 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
btw

the wiki web site says that when a more massive body collides with a less massive body the more massive body does not change its velocity.

and the less massive body then has twice the speed of the more massive body less its original speed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

Quote:
Thus the more massive body does not change its velocity, and the less massive body travels at twice the velocity of the more massive body less its own original velocity. Assuming both masses were heading towards each other on impact, the less massive body is now therefore moving in the opposite direction at twice the speed of the more massive body plus its own original speed.


but surely you want something for your -4000Ns momentum influence !! to use to slow or stop the pipe.

but since were using a 100% elastic collision
you cant have anything to use !!!


No, Paul. Read the preceding line:
"When the first body is much more massive than the other (that is, m1 m2), the final velocities are approximately given by"

You can use the two equations immediately above that line. Those are exact not approximate. They're what I already used in my program, which you've seen.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/27/11 01:59 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
the 100 kg mass that has a original speed of 40 m/s will inherit 13.49721 m/s x 2 = 26.99442

distance x momentum = 1000 meters x 6699.442Ns = 6699442

distance x time = 1000 meters x 50 seconds = 50,000

F = 6699442 / 50000 = 133.98884N

I'll finish it later , Im trying to put this in a program.


No, no, no. All completely wrong. Don't waste your time programming it. We had this issue before. Instead of guessing, find where on the same page, the meaning of "d" is defined as "distance".
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/27/11 03:17 AM

your right , it does say differential above the formula.

so I'll use a different means that has the same result.

I'll change it around below.

-------------------------------------------------------

as far as I can tell , with the use of physics math
the 100 kg mass that has a original speed of 40 m/s will inherit 13.49721 m/s x 2 = 26.99442

for a grand total of 66.99442 m/s speed

so its velocity would be +66.99442 m/s

the 100 kg mass accelerated from 40 m/s to 67 m/s
in 1 second.

so the acceleration from 40 m/s to 67 m/s
in 1 second was 27 m/s/s

if I decelerate the 100 kg mass from 67 m/s to 0 m/s
the pipe will feel a force each second of

first lets check if this will work
v = vi x (a x t)

v = 67 m/s = 0m/s X ( 1.34 x 50 seconds)

so we decelerate it at a rate of -1.34 m/s/s
lets check it.

f=ma
134N = 100 kg x 1.34




so during the time period between 51 seconds to 52 seconds the pipe will have a force of
+134N and a force of +4000N causing it to accelerate.

after this second has passed the pipes momentum will become higher than the previous second.

which should cause the next 100 kg mass to have a even higher speed as it leaves the turn.

etc etc etc ,,, bla bla bla...

I'll finish it later , Im trying to put this in a program.

---------------------------------------------

it looks like the result was the same.


Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/27/11 03:24 AM

Quote:
much more massive


how would you determine when a mass is much more massive?

is there a much more massive formula that is used to determine when a object is much more massive than another object?

is 6000kg much more massive than 100 kg?

or is it merely more massive?


Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/27/11 03:36 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
much more massive


how would you determine when a mass is much more massive?

is there a much more massive formula that is used?

is 6000kg much more massive than 100 kg?

or is it merely more massive?




That's why you can't use that formula for something that needs to be precise. There's no point at which it changes from wrong to right. It's only an approximation. Anyone using it has to decide if their large mass is large enough for the approximation to be good enough for their application. For us it is never good enough because we have a cumulative effect of many masses hitting it again and again, so the little error gets worse and worse.

The two equations immediately before it at the exact ones. Use them instead. They give correct results for large or small masses.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/27/11 03:45 AM

on the force page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force


where are the two your talking about?

Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/27/11 04:23 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
so the acceleration from 40 m/s to 67 m/s
in 1 second was 27 m/s/s


Huh? Where does a mass have a velocity of 40m/s? How did it get into that state?

The animation app showed one changing from -40m/s to 69m/s (or similar).

-40m/s is not the same as 40m/s.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/27/11 04:25 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
where are the two your talking about?

section on momentum page
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/27/11 02:34 PM

Quote:
section on momentum page


you should just post the formula you prefer that way I dont use the wrong one.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/27/11 02:38 PM

let me rephrase that just for you , so that you can comprehend it.

Quote:
so the 100 kg mass passing through the turn that is experiencing a speed increase from 40 m/s to 67 m/s
in 1 second experiences an acceleration of 27 m/s/s


therefore

a = (sf - si)/t

where
a = acceleration m/s/s
s = speed
t = time in seconds
f = final
i = initial

a = 67 m/s - 40 m/s / 1 second = 27 m/s/s

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/27/11 05:22 PM

did you know that.

if I was stationary in space in zero g

and the pipe had a velocity of +40 m/s

I would see the pipe moving at +40 m/s.

and if the pipe were transparent I would see the mass moving at +40 m/s just before it is launched in the (-) direction toward the turn.

after the 100 kg mass has traveled the 1000 meter distance to the turn and has been accelerated to -40 m/s during the 50 second acceleration time.

the 100 kg mass would not have a velocity !!!
and it would not have momentum !!!

in fact it has been decelerated from +40 m/s to 0m/s





Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/27/11 08:27 PM

Im replying to my post because Im having a really hard time with the below from wiki.

Quote:
Thus the more massive body does not change its velocity, and the less massive body travels at twice the velocity of the more massive body less its own original velocity. Assuming both masses were heading towards each other on impact, the less massive body is now therefore moving in the opposite direction at twice the speed of the more massive body plus its own original speed.


Thus the more massive body does not change its velocity
that doesnt seem like it belongs in physics.

and the less massive body travels at twice the velocity of the more massive body less its own original velocity

that makes absolutely no sense.

twice the velocity !

no matter what the momentum is of the 2 bodies as long as one of them is more massive than the other.

thats like saying a car hits a train head on and the trains speed does not decrease.

train mass = 5 million kg
train velocity = +10 m/s
50 million Ns

what if the car has a speed of -5 million m/s
or -500 million m/s?

I say if the car weighs only 1 kg and it has enough speed it can not only stop the train but reverse its direction.

I dont think I'll use that method of determining the speed of the mass as it passes through the turn.

because this is the year 2011 and physics should have advanced beyond that type of crap.

its like there applying speed limits to math.
like they did to light.
like they own it.
or trying to control it would be the better choice of words.


so since physics math is not sure of what happens in a collision I dont think we should treat the turn as a collision.

we have too much troubles with the mass having to stop
and then reverse direction.

but the mass in our turn does not stop.


Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/27/11 11:46 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
section on momentum page


you should just post the formula you prefer that way I dont use the wrong one.



You can use any correct formulas. If it's not suitable then it won't produce a result. You might find others that you prefer.

But my preference is the first 2 formulas on that link.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/27/11 11:49 PM

Originally Posted By: paul


the 100 kg mass would not have a velocity !!!
and it would not have momentum !!!

in fact it has been decelerated from +40 m/s to 0m/s


Good God. This is hopeless. All the time I have been assuming all velocities are measured from a single observer, "stationary in space".

Now it turns out you've been measuring some of them from different reference frames - sometimes the tube, sometimes the other observer.

It's much easier if you use just one observer! Then we get -80m/s for the mass you described.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/27/11 11:50 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
let me rephrase that just for you , so that you can comprehend it.
a = 67 m/s - 40 m/s / 1 second = 27 m/s/s



Where did the 40m/s come from? Each mass has -40m/s before entering the turn, doesn't it?
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/27/11 11:53 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
that makes absolutely no sense.

Correct.

Quote:

twice the velocity !

no matter what the momentum is of the 2 bodies as long as one of them is more massive than the other.


"much more massive" is not the same as "more massive"
">>" is not the same as ">"

Again, it's an approximation. It's never correct. It gets closer and closer to correct the more massive the body is. So we better not use it.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/28/11 12:07 AM

Quote:
">>" is not the same as ">"


so its like >^2?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/28/11 12:10 AM

because I used a minus sign.

Quote:
a = 67 m/s - 40 m/s / 1 second = 27 m/s/s


put a -40 m/s in there and you get 107 m/s/s



Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/28/11 12:15 AM

Quote:
Good God. This is hopeless. All the time I have been assuming all velocities are measured from a single observer, "stationary in space".

Now it turns out you've been measuring some of them from different reference frames - sometimes the tube, sometimes the other observer.

It's much easier if you use just one observer! Then we get -80m/s for the mass you described.


Good God. This is hopeless. All the time I have been assuming all velocities are measured from a single observer, "stationary in space".

Now it turns out you've been measuring some of them from different reference frames - sometimes the tube, sometimes the other observer.


really , I didnt know that I thought we were inside the pipe system.

ok , lets do the rest from outside then.

Then we get -80m/s for the mass you described.

hows that?

what Im showing so far is that after 50 seconds

and this is from an observer outside during the 50 seconds.
Im looking at the pipe and the pipe is moving to my left.
after the 50 seconds has passed

the pipe has moved +321.036744117737 meters to my left
the mass has moved -678.963255882263 meters to my right

the pipe has a velocity of +12.84147 m/s
the mass has a velocity of -27.15853 m/s

the pipe has a momentum of +77048.82 Ns
the mass has a momentum of -2715.853 Ns

the pipe has a mass of 6000 kg
the mass has a mass of 100 kg

so the 100 kg mass enters the turn
at a velocity of -27.15853 m/s

now you only have -2715.853 Ns vs +77048.82 Ns
thats a difference of
+74332.967 Ns momentum

LOL

that was the sound of me sawing a leg off of your new table.

is this the equation your talking about?


if so I suppose that the "d" in the formula has no real value because so far I havent been able to find just what is used to put where the "d" 's are. !!!

and it only takes into account 1 mass and 1 velocity

normaly when a symbol represents an element that has value the person describing the usage of the symbols in the formula will tell you what the different symbols are supposed to represent.

is this true in the above formula?

so that where the formula uses symbolism such as
dt or dp
it really just means
t or p

?????

or are these the 2 formulas your talking about?





theres no unexplained "d"'s in it and it really needs no explanation as to how your supposed to use it.

not that they have any descriptive instructions on using them
as wiki has in their informative articles related to physics.

I of course would guess that
u1 = m1 velocity initial
u2 = m2 velocity initial

because a guess is all I have to work with using this
non informative article.

ok , I got them to work the results are below.

using initial velocities of

m1 vi -27.15853 m/s
m2 vi +12.84147 m/s

m1 mass 100 kg
m2 mass 6000 kg

results

m1 v = +51.52999459 m/s
m2 v = +11.52999459 m/s

that is using these formulas




I plugged the formulas into an excel file
I havent programmed them into my program yet.

is that about what you get?

do you think that this would be a good way to determine the
velocity of the 100 kg mass as it leaves the turn and the velocity of the pipe?

if so then we can get on with this and cover the next 50 seconds.

thats where the pipe gets really fast.




Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/28/11 03:26 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
because I used a minus sign.

a = 67 m/s - 40 m/s / 1 second = 27 m/s/s

put a -40 m/s in there and you get 107 m/s/s


Yes. 107m/s^2 is the acceleration, and is also consistent with the formula you used:

Quote:

a = (sf - si)/t


sf = 67m/s
si = -40m/s
a = (67m/s - -40m/s) / 1s = 107m/s^2
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/28/11 03:38 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
ok , lets do the rest from outside then.

OK. I probably should have mentioned that sooner.



Quote:

now you only have -2715.853 Ns vs +77048.82 Ns
thats a difference of
+74332.967 Ns momentum


Again, you've ignored the other 49 masses that are about to hit the turn. They're more than enough to stop the pipe then reverse its direction.



Quote:
if so I suppose that the "d" in the formula has no real value because so far I havent been able to find just what is used to put where the "d" 's are. !!!

I think we should leave that for another time. The d has a common meaning that's universally used across math and physics, so they don't need to say it. It's much more standard than symbols for velocity, etc. But we better not go into what it actually means. Easier to just not use that formula.


Quote:



m1 vi -27.15853 m/s
m2 vi +12.84147 m/s

m1 mass 100 kg
m2 mass 6000 kg

results

m1 v = +51.52999459 m/s
m2 v = +11.52999459 m/s

is that about what you get?

do you think that this would be a good way to determine the
velocity of the 100 kg mass as it leaves the turn and the velocity of the pipe?


Yes to all the above. Except I don't trust the vi values you're using. But that's an issue with the accelerator not the turn.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/28/11 01:09 PM

Quote:
Again, you've ignored the other 49 masses that are about to hit the turn. They're more than enough to stop the pipe then reverse its direction.


it wouldnt be 49 it would be 50

I havent ignored the other 50 masses that are being accelerated towards the turn.

during the 51 st second they are whats providing the force that pushes the pipe.

you have agreed that the formula is correct other than the initial velocity values.

so I will plug in that formula into my program.

Quote:
They're more than enough to stop the pipe then reverse its direction.


m2 vi +12.84147 m/s

m2 v = +11.52999459 m/s

this single mass managed to slow the pipes velocity by
1.31147541 m/s in 1 second

however the pipes mass becomes less each second
and
the force driving the pipe in the (+) direction
becomes stronger each second.

for the next 50 seconds the force driving the pipe will increase by a minimum of 80N each second and more if the speed of the exiting mass has a velocity
greater than +40 m/s.

and the mass that the increasing force has to push becomes less and less each second.

anyway , I'll plug the formula in today.

Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/28/11 02:13 PM

Originally Posted By: paul


is this the equation your talking about?


if so I suppose that the "d" in the formula has no real value because so far I havent been able to find just what is used to put where the "d" 's are. !!!



The d's don't have values, per se, because in that usage, d is an operator (roughly, like + or -). Actually, they are PART of an operator. It's first semester calculus.

It's a *unary* operator, so it doesn't sit between two operands. Instead, it sits before the operand.

d()/dt is an operator that means the "differential" of something "with respect to" t. For example, d(p)/dt means the change in momentum given an "infinitesimally" small change in time.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/28/11 04:04 PM

thanks TFF

I didnt think it had any value.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/28/11 04:05 PM

OK , I got it working.

and WOW !!!

here are the results after 101 seconds.

hold on to your hat !!!!

the force that accelerated each of the 100 kg masses
was +80N x 1000 meters = +4000N

the force that is required to decelerate each of the 100 kg masses increases every second.

so the pipe feels +4000N plus the extra for the additional
+velocity that the decelerating mass has gained through the turn.

this pushes the pipe faster and faster each second.

by the time (101 seconds) the 1st mass reaches the place it started from
the pipe has a force that causes it to accelerate in the (+) direction of +15987.072 N

and the pipe has moved a distance of +9604.559 meters.

by the time (202 seconds) the last accelerated mass reaches the place where it started from the pipe has a force that causes it to accelerate in the (+) direction of +1302187.380N

and the pipe has moved a distance of +2863843.953 meters
or +2863.843 km

its needs some improvement because it takes 6.8 minutes to reach light speed.

I dont think that would be a proper acceleration for bags of salt water.

so we might want to slow it down a bit.

but to mars at 56,000,000 km its a slow 6.8 minute cruise.

it might be best to experiment with this type of thing without people in it first.

because if something breaks they might find themselves in another galaxy the next day.

I let it run for 1 hour

and the pipe traveled a distance of

5.02576160643331E+73 meters

my program breaks it down into 1 million km units also

5.02576160643331E+64 million km







Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/29/11 12:56 AM

Quote:

the force that accelerated each of the 100 kg masses
was +80N x 1000 meters = +4000N

No. That quantity is 80,000Nm. Nm is not force. Actually it's energy. Using it as a force means everything else in your post will be meaningless so I didn't read it. Also the multiplication is done wrong.

Can you show your calculations step-by-step? Without missing any steps?

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/29/11 01:04 AM

LOL

your right , I did mess that up.

it is +80N applied for 50 seconds.

+80N each second for 50 seconds over a distance of 1000 meters

+80N x 50 seconds = +4000N

Quote:
Can you show your calculations step-by-step? Without missing any steps?


I think it would be best if you did your own calculations and if our calculations are different then we can discuss them.

you said you have vb 6

I could just rename the .prj + .frm + .vbw files to .txt and you could just remove the .txt from them and run it yourself.

open up your notepad , paste the below in it.
save it as (form1.frm.txt) then rename it to
form1.frm and see if you can run it.
-----do not copy this line-----------------------

VERSION 5.00
Begin VB.Form Form1
Caption = "Form1"
ClientHeight = 3195
ClientLeft = 60
ClientTop = 345
ClientWidth = 4680
LinkTopic = "Form1"
ScaleHeight = 3195
ScaleWidth = 4680
StartUpPosition = 3 'Windows Default
Begin VB.CommandButton Command2
Caption = "timer = 1 second per interval value"
Height = 375
Left = 1200
TabIndex = 2
Top = 2160
Width = 3015
End
Begin VB.Timer Timer1
Left = 360
Top = 2160
End
Begin VB.CommandButton Command1
Caption = "Button"
Height = 375
Left = 1560
TabIndex = 1
Top = 480
Width = 1215
End
Begin VB.TextBox Text1
Height = 375
Left = 1560
TabIndex = 0
Text = "0"
Top = 1080
Width = 1215
End
End
Attribute VB_Name = "Form1"
Attribute VB_GlobalNameSpace = False
Attribute VB_Creatable = False
Attribute VB_PredeclaredId = True
Attribute VB_Exposed = False
Private Sub Command1_Click()
Text1.Text = 80 * 50

End Sub

Private Sub Command2_Click()
Timer1.Interval = 1
End Sub

Private Sub Timer1_Timer()
Text1.Text = Val(Text1.Text) + 80

End Sub




-----------do not copy this line---------------

if you can run the above then this might work.





Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/29/11 04:54 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
LOL
+80N x 50 seconds = +4000N


4000Ns, not 4000N. This is the impulse applied to the pipe, not the force. It's also the momentum added to it. The force is 80N because you defined the force to be 80N.


Quote:

I think it would be best if you did your own calculations and if our calculations are different then we can discuss them.

No. That will lead to another confusing mess. You can just show each step of the machine, and what happens to the relevant variables (velocity/etc).

You can probably get your program to show the results after each change.

I already wrote a program for the complete 1-mass system. You didn't bother to even read the code or paste it into your own program, or run it, or anything. So I don't want to waste time doing that again.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/29/11 02:50 PM

Quote:
4000Ns, not 4000N. This is the impulse applied to the pipe, not the force. It's also the momentum added to it. The force is 80N because you defined the force to be 80N.


q: what is the amount of force that you would need to apply to a 100kg mass in order to accelerate it at a acceleration rate of .8 m/s/s for a distance of 1000 meters over a time period of 50 seconds.

answer: 4000N

80N x 50 seconds = 4000N

1 newton = the force required to accelerate a 1 kg mass at a
acceleration of 1 m/s/s.

or you can say

1 newton = the force required to accelerate a 1 kg mass at a
acceleration rate of 1 m/s each second.

ie ... in 1 second the 1kg mass will accelerate to 1 m/s/s if you apply a force of 1N to it for a time of 1 second


so 50 seconds x 80N = 4000N

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(unit)

Quote:
it is equal to the amount of net force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one meter per second squared


Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/29/11 03:04 PM

Originally Posted By: paul


80N x 50 seconds = 4000N



No.
80N x 50 = 4000N

80N x 50 seconds = 4000Ns

We don't throw away the seconds. Force x Time yields a Force x Time, not a Force alone.

Q: What is 2 bananas times 2 bananas?
Hint: NOT 4 bananas.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/29/11 03:18 PM

the reason I used 50 seconds is because kallog cant seem to understand things that Im trying to communicate to him.

and here is what he commented on.

Quote:
the force that accelerated each of the 100 kg masses
was +80N x 1000 meters = +4000N


if you want to accelerate a 100kg mass from 0m to 1000m
in 50 seconds , at an acceleration rate of .8 m/s/s
you are required to apply a 80N force for the 1000 meter
distance thus 80N x 1000m = 4000N

proof = 4000N / 80N = 50 seconds
proof = .8 m/s/s = 80N / 100kg
proof = 80N = 100kg x .8 m/s/s

meaning that the total force over the 50 second time period that the 80N was applied for over the 1000 meter distance would be 4000N

Quote:
that accelerated

past tense = it has already happened.
80N was applied for 1000 meters.

what the meaning of the sentence means is that
the total force that I paid for to accelerate the 100 kg mass was 80N x 1000 meters = 4000N


that is how I would interpret that sentence.

he commented on my use of 1000 meters as if he didnt understand what it was representing.

if it cost you 1 dollar a second to walk and you walked a distance of 1000 meters in 50 seconds

would it cost you 50 dollars or 50 dollar seconds?

1 dollar x 50 seconds = 50 dollars
it certainly doesnt equal 50 dollars a second
or 50 dollar seconds
it equals 50 dollars


obviously he didnt rembember what we have been discussing.

I changed the 1000 meters to 50 seconds and I used the word seconds to describe what the (50) represented!!
ie.. so that he would possibly be able to understand what the
50 REPRESENTED
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/29/11 04:25 PM

Quote:
You can probably get your program to show the results after each change.


it already does.

it shows all changes to all possible elements that I can think of.

mass , velocity , force , acceleration , time , distance

it adds 80N each second to accelerate each mass to the total force that accelerates the pipe.

it subtracts 100kg from the total mass of the pipe each second because each launched mass is 100kg.

it has separate calculations for every second.
it has a separate calculation for the turn.
(it just got faster because the 1 second turn wont require 1 full second)but I havent included that yet.

it replaces the initial velocities of the pipe and the 100kg mass with the resultant velocities of the pipe and 100kg mass from the turn calculation.

it adds the force required to decelerate the 100kg mass to the total force applied to the pipe each second.

so that when an element changes such as velocity or mass
the program determines the force required to apply to either accelerate or decelerate the pipe and the 100kg mass.

its pretty accurate other than the 1 second turn time that is pre-programmed into it.
and that turn time will be lower every time a mass passes through it.

but that will change too.

I think that if I use the initial velocity of the mass and the final velocity of the mass as it passes through the turn
I can get the time required for the mass to pass using
the following formulas

va = .5(vi+vf)
where
vi = initial velocity
vf = final velocity
va = average velocity
( = bracket
) = bracket
. = .
= = equal to
+ = plus

this is the average velocity of the mass through the turn
meaning that the result from the above formula would be the average velocity of the mass passing through the turn.

where average means average.

then
t = vi / vf
where
t = time
vi = initial velocity
vf = final velocity
/ = divided by
= = equal to

so the only way to keep track of the actual time would be to keep a separate time value.

the program will track only the programming time.
meaning that the program follows a set interval when dealing with time , that is the program will execute code at a given time that represent actual time.


so every time a mass passes through the turn the program will
add a partial time to the time value vs adding a full second to the time value

but the program itself will only use full seconds to execute the code.






Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/29/11 05:04 PM

Paul,
I think you would enjoy taking a pre-calculus class. You would obviously do your homework which is the main problem that most people have with it - and I bet you could find some acceptable classes offered online.

It probably wouldn't be any more effort than you are investing now.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/29/11 05:31 PM

Im not investing effort this is one of my hobbies.

my main problem is that people dont seem to be able to understand things your talking about even though youve been discussing the same thing for months.

and how they can stretch a discussion that should have required a day or so into years of typing in forums.

I believe the system will work.
kallog thinks it wouldnt work.

kallog just cant figure out why the system wouldnt work so he is grasping at every opportunity he can find to delay admitting it.

in the past in all of our discussions he has always supplied a quick reason why he thought that something wouldnt work and now he just cant find anything so hes stalling by nit picking everything he can find.

I might have problems calling things there proper units
but a program doesnt use units it only uses numbers.

and my program says it will work using only numbers to describe what would happen.




Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/29/11 05:55 PM

Quote:
We don't throw away the seconds. Force x Time yields a Force x Time, not a Force alone.


what is a force?

what is a newton?

what does N mean?

what does 80N mean?

1 newton = 1kg x 1 m/s/s
1 newton = 1kg x 1 m/s x 1 second

4000N = 100kg x .8 m/s/s x 50 seconds
4000N = 80N x 50 seconds

thats why you can also say
80 kg m/s/s
or
80 kg m/s per second

time is in the "N"


Quote:
it is +80N applied for 50 seconds.

+80N each second for 50 seconds over a distance of 1000 meters

+80N x 50 seconds = +4000N



time is in the "N"


if I would have just said

80N x 50 = 4000N

kallog would have asked 50 what?

he would have said something like

you cant just multiply force by a number in order to stall a while longer.

he would have said that that would equal 4000N somethings because I didnt say what the 50 represented.

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/29/11 06:23 PM

Quote:
Q: What is 2 bananas times 2 bananas?
Hint: NOT 4 bananas.


if 1 banana = 1 banana x 1 meter/second x 1 second

how many bananas would you have if you started with 0 bananas
and you picked up 1 banana each second for 50 seconds and you traveled a distance of 1000 meters.


1 banana x 50 seconds = 50 bananas

why would you say 50 banana seconds or 50 Bs

what if you picked up 80 bananas each second?

80 bananas x 50 seconds = 4000 bananas

how far did you travel to pick up the 4000 bananas?

1000 meters

how fast was your acceleration while you were picking up bananas

.8 m/s/s


if 1 banana = 1 banana x 1 meter/second x 1 second

then you should be able to pick up 1000 bananas in 1000 seconds if you picked up 1 banana each second.

or you should be able to pick up 1000 bananas in 1000 meters if you picked up 1 banana each meter.

but if you really hurry you can pick up

4000 bananas in 50 seconds if you pick up 80 bananas each second.

how many bananas would you have if you picked up 4000 bananas in 50 seconds?

4000 bananas

not 4000 banana seconds

how many newtons would you apply if you applied 80 newtons
each second for 50 seconds?
80N x 50 seconds = 4000N

not 4000 Ns

Originally Posted By: paul
it is +80N applied for 50 seconds.

+80N each second for 50 seconds over a distance of 1000 meters

+80N x 50 seconds = +4000N


Originally Posted By: kallog
4000Ns, not 4000N. This is the impulse applied to the pipe, not the force. It's also the momentum added to it. The force is 80N because you defined the force to be 80N.


Originally Posted By: kallog
This is the impulse applied to the pipe, not the force.


wrong , it is the 80N force applied to the pipe for 50 seconds.

the force is 4000N

a force is any influence that causes an object to undergo a change in speed

the force of 80N influenced the pipe to undergo a change in speed.

this force was applied for 50 seconds.

80N x 50 seconds = 4000N

not 4000Ns

what if I had applied the 80N force to the mass for only 1 second.

80N x 1 second = 80N

what if I had applied the 80N force to the mass for only 0 seconds.

80N x 0 second = 0N

when I originaly wrote what I wrote my purpose was to communicate that the total force applied to get the 100kg mass to travel the 1000 meter distance with a final velocity of 40 m/s in 50 seconds was 4000N










Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/29/11 07:38 PM

I don't understand your "system' and I have not followed the posts, but I have peeked in and it seems to me that you make very basic mistakes. I'm not saying he's right. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you make very basic mistakes.

Answer: 2 bananas * 2 bananas = 4 bananas^2 (4 bananas squared)

Part of the beauty of algebra is that you don't have to think about the physical interpretation of intermediate results - but you do have to follow the rules. Ideally, you should understand them, but if you don't understand them, you at least need to use them in all derivations you use. You may not like it, but you can be pretty sure that the fellows who provided you with the formulas you're using would use the formulas in the way I suggest.

In every intro to science or engineering class one ever takes, among the most basic things the teacher will harp on is this: always keep your units. This is very important.

1 meter * 1 second is 1 meter-second. 2 meters and 2 seconds is 4 meter-seconds. 1 N * 1 s = 1 Ns. That's the math that all of these formulas requires - regardless of whether the interim results make physical sense to you.

It just doesn't make sense to argue about these more complicated examples, if you can't agree on the most fundamental cases. I tutor math from pre-algebra through calculus. I always start students on the simplest case I can think of.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/29/11 08:29 PM

Answer: 2 bananas * 2 bananas = 4 bananas^2 (4 bananas squared)

2 bananas squared = 4 bananas
4 bananas squared = 16 bananas

no , it equals 4 bananas
ie..

2 x 2 = 4

bananas x bananas = bananas

therefore 4 bananas

4^2 = 16
4 squared = 16

4 bananas squared = 4 bananas x 4 bananas = 16 bananas

put 4 in your calculator and then hit the x^2 button

when measuring the square footage of your room...

20 ft x 20 ft = 400 sq ft
not 400 sq ft^2
400 sq ft^2 = 160000 sq ft

you can also say 20 ft squared = 400 sq ft
or 20 ft^2 = 400 sq ft
but 20 sq ft isnt 400 sq ft either

so
(4 bananas squared)
isnt 4 bananas
its 16 bananas

think of each x as a banana

xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

the x's form a square

4 bananas x 4 bananas = 16 bananas

not 16^2 or 16 bananas squared

or you can count the x's below
in the 20 x^2 room

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Quote:
1 N * 1 s = 1 Ns


1 newton is 1 second!
time is built into newtons

if someone tells me I only have a force of 80N

I know what I can do with it without thinking , about time.

80N will accelerate a 80 kg mass to 1 m/s/s in 1 second.
or
80N will will accelerate a 1 kg mass to 80 m/s/s in 1 second
or
80N will accelerate a 100 kg mass to .8 m/s/s in 1 second

so notice in the 3 examples above the only things that remained the same is

80N will accelerate a
and
in 1 second

1 newton is the force required to accelerate 1kg to 1 m/s/s

in physics we use N as the units of force
and
we use Ns as the units of momentum

momentum is not force
and
force is not momentum
from wiki force and momentum

In classical mechanics, momentum (pl. momenta; SI unit kgm/s, or, equivalently, Ns)

The SI unit of force is the newton (symbol N), which is the force required to accelerate a one kilogram mass at a rate of one meter per second squared


Quote:
I tutor math



Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/30/11 01:02 AM

Originally Posted By: paul

q: what is the amount of force that you would need to apply to a 100kg mass in order to accelerate it at a acceleration rate of .8 m/s/s for a distance of 1000 meters over a time period of 50 seconds.

answer: 4000N
80N x 50 seconds = 4000N

Again, no. You ignored the seconds. It should be 4000Ns which is an impulse, not a force. In this case impulse may be the more useful quantity because it captures the time that it took.

Correct answer:
F=ma
F=100kg * 0.8m/s^2
F=80N

You used

F=mat

which is not correct. If you doubt me, try to find a reference for it. Maybe search for that formula on Google.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/30/11 01:16 AM

Originally Posted By: paul

kallog just cant figure out why the system wouldnt work so he is grasping at every opportunity he can find to delay admitting it.

Paul. I nailed down the 1-mass system water tight. It works exactly as I always said it would. That's a big step. But you didn't follow it.

So if I work out the complete system you won't follow that either. My effort will be wasted. That's why I would rather you do the work and I just correct the individual mistakes.


Quote:

I might have problems calling things there proper units
but a program doesnt use units it only uses numbers.

Sure, but 80N is not the same as 4000N. At the same time 1000g is the same as 1kg. Using the wrong number leads to the wrong result. This units business is actually crucial, it's not splitting hairs. It's the reason you get some seriously wrong answers.

It's also not hard. TFF has explained how it works. Just do that on every single calculation you do. Then you won't be calling an impulse a force, because the units will show that it's not a force, and cannot be correctly used where force is required.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/30/11 02:17 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
q: what is the amount of force that you would need to apply to a 100kg mass in order to accelerate it at a acceleration rate of .8 m/s/s for a distance of 1000 meters over a time period of 50 seconds.

answer: 4000N
80N x 50 seconds = 4000N




q: what is the amount of force that you would need to apply to a 100kg mass in order to accelerate it at a acceleration rate of .8 m/s/s?

answer 80N

q:over a time period of 50 seconds?

answer:4000N

did you read the question.
it ask what is the amount of force.
not what is the amount of momentum.
or what is the impulse force.



Originally Posted By: kallog
Again, no. You ignored the seconds. It should be 4000Ns which is an impulse, not a force. In this case impulse may be the more useful quantity because it captures the time that it took.

Correct answer:
F=ma
F=100kg * 0.8m/s^2
F=80N


what you are doing is accelerating the 100 kg mass to
.8 m/s/s for 1 second , it would only reach a velocity of
0.8 m/s in that 1 second.

and if 80N is all the force you can apply to the 100 kg mass
then after that 1 second you would no longer be accelerating the mass because you already used the force that you had.

so after you had applied the 80N force to the 100kg mass for a time of 1 second it would have 80Ns momentum
I didnt even have to calculate the momentum because the force caused its momentum.

and I know that the force applied was 80N

lets check it.

p=mv
p = 100kg x 0.8 m/s = 80Ns
yep...


it would keep going in zero g at a velocity of -0.8 m/s , but thats not what were doing here.

remember were accelerating the mass to -40 m/s not -0.8 m/s
ie..it needs to have a velocity of 40 m/s by the time it reaches the turn at a distance of 999.6 meters from where it was after you ran out of force.

OBVIOUSLY

your correct answer: is wrong.





Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/30/11 02:19 AM

Paul, there is no scientist or engineer on the planet that uses math as you do.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/30/11 03:06 AM

Quote:
Answer: 2 bananas * 2 bananas = 4 bananas^2 (4 bananas squared)


really?

thats why bridges fall down perhaps.

maybe you scientist and engineers and math tutors should have studied while you had the chance.

now that your working in the field and applying your knowledge to build things with and to teach others how to build things maybe you should take a refresher course before you teach your students the wrong way to do math.

4 square bananas = 4 bananas

not 4 bananas squared

4 bananas squared = 16 bananas







Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/30/11 04:02 AM

Originally Posted By: paul

maybe you scientist and engineers and math tutors should have studied while you had the chance.



In high school, I tied for the 6th highest score in the state on the national math exam.

My masters was in engineering math (and cs).

I use math every day to solve real world problems.

I've used math to compute missile paths and camera visibility.

I'm pretty sure that I did study and continue to study.

I've just completed level I at projecteuler.net for no other reason than it's fun.

Paul, the guys who developed the formulas you're trying to use apply math in the same way that I do.

2 bananas * 2 = 4 bananas.

2 bananas * 2 bananas = 4 bananas^2

1 N <> 1 Ns

If you can't understand or at least accept this simple thing, any discussion with kallog or anyone else is wasted.

Let's try something even simpler ...
What is 2x * 2x?

Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/30/11 04:21 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
did you read the question.
it ask what is the amount of force.
not what is the amount of momentum.
or what is the impulse force.

I understand the question. But what TFF said recently is probably the best way to go. We should give up until you can do the basic operations that are needed to analyse this.

In the case of your question, you can simply apply the formula

F=ma

That's all, just substitute mass and acceleration to find the force. This equation is true for 1s, or 50s. If you disagree with that (Newton's 2nd law) then that's a whole different topic.

There is no such thing as what you're using:

F=mat

That equation is automatically wrong because it is dimensionally inconsistent.



Quote:

and if 80N is all the force you can apply to the 100 kg mass
then after that 1 second you would no longer be accelerating the mass because you already used the force that you had.

After that 1s, I'm still applying the same 80N force, continuously for all the seconds up to 50.

I can clearly see you're trying to find a "cumulative force" or the integral of force over time. That's fine, and it's a useful quantity, but it's not a force itself. Not being a force means you can't use units of N, and you can't use that number in any equations that require force.

It's a bit like saying "oh it's 20degrees today". "If I stand outside for 5 minutes I'll experience a temperature of 20 degrees * 300s = 6000degrees, It'll be as hot as the surface of the sun!"
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/30/11 04:59 AM

Here's an explanation you can't argue with Paul.

1) I make an origami structure out of paper.
2) It's pretty strong, I can put a 8kg bottle of water on it without it collapsing
3) I put a heavier 9kg bottle on it, and it crushes into a pancake
4) I conclude that it can support 80N (weight of 8kg).
5) I insert this structure between the mass and the accelerator. It's like a buffer which the accelerator pushes on instead of directly on the mass.
6) The structure will not collapse during the entire 50s acceleration.
7) Therefore it is not experiencing any force greater than 90N.
8) Therefore there is no 4000N force on it.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/30/11 05:15 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
thats why bridges fall down perhaps.

Yes, if someone parks their car on a bridge, the weight force it applies to the bridge will increase with time. After a few minutes it will have overloaded the bridge and it collapses.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/30/11 05:19 AM

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
In high school, I tied for the 6th highest score in the state on the national math exam.


Hehe, sure. I tied for 15th highest score in the country on the national physics exam.

My score was 86% wink
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/30/11 02:20 PM

Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
In high school, I tied for the 6th highest score in the state on the national math exam.


Hehe, sure. I tied for 15th highest score in the country on the national physics exam.

My score was 86% wink


Outstanding! Contrary to Paul's implication, it *seems* to me that we *did* pay attention in math class.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/30/11 03:01 PM

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Outstanding! Contrary to Paul's implication, it *seems* to me that we *did* pay attention in math class.

Not quite sure how well the meaning is communicated, but I would have shared that tie with thousands of other students :P
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/30/11 03:56 PM

Originally Posted By: kallog

Not quite sure how well the meaning is communicated, but I would have shared that tie with thousands of other students


I knew there would have been a big number, but I didn't realize it was so many. I also shared (tied) with (I think) a couple dozen students. Still, it is an outstanding accomplishment. OTOH, it's probably good to state the provisos in case anyone tries to get through this thread.

And the conclusion stands. There's no evidence that either of us didn't pay attention in math class, and some reasonable evidence to the contrary.

My argument to Paul is not "I have master's degree, etc. in math so I must be right."

My argument is that "I have a master's degree in math, etc.; this seems inconsistent with Paul's assertion that I didn't pay attention in math class." (That was only a follow up, tangential point.)

My main argument is that everyone who uses math, INCLUDING the people who derived the formulas that Paul is applying use it in the same way that you and I do. Now that isn't what makes us right. BUT

1) Why use any of the formulas since they were derived by people he thinks are incompetent at math?

1a) If the formulas were derived by bad math, why use them?

2) You guys are wasting time talking about your examples when there is a much more fundamental disagreement. That's not exactly correct ... only you guys can tell whether it's worth your own time, but it SEEMS to me that you can't ever reach agreement when you have such fundamentally different understandings.

3) Some of these things are counter-intuitive (at first), so I don't have an issue with Paul's disagreement. In fact, I had different (but similar) questions about math. These are the kinds of questions that HS students OUGHT to be asking in their math classes, but often don't, because most of them are memorizing.

3a) HOWEVER, when I had *my* issues, I didn't say that everyone else was wrong. Instead I pored over the book, worked problems, consulted other books, interrogated the teachers. I asked, "Why DO they think about it that way?" Sometimes the other kids got irritated (and some of the lower level teachers did too), but generally the teachers in the higher math classes understood my difficulties and helped me navigate my intellectual impasses.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/30/11 04:58 PM

Quote:
In high school, I tied for the 6th highest score ,bla,bla,bla,pat myself on the back ,,bla,bla,bla,try to make it look like Im smart, ,bla,bla,bla,

time passes reading about what lead to the following

2 bananas * 2 = 4 bananas.


that is correct
Quote:

2 bananas * 2 bananas = 4 bananas^2

incorrect
Quote:

1 N <> 1 Ns

[not applicable]
the question was about total force applied over time.

Quote:

If you can't understand or at least accept this simple thing, any discussion with kallog or anyone else is wasted.

I wouldnt say that , because it is yourself and kallog who seem incable of discussing physics due to a lack of basic logic.
Quote:

Let's try something even simpler ...
What is 2x * 2x?

2x * 2x = 4x

lets use the following image as an example of how people who arent as smart as you apply there knowlege.



in the image above its both clear and logical that
5 x 5 = 25

now if each of the squares in the image were bananas there would be 25 bananas.

notice that the text in the image does not say 25 squared

it says 5 squared

5^2 = 25

that is basic math.

4^2 = 16

that is basic math.

you need to refresh your math skills.
just because you have attended a school doesnt mean you are smart.
it only shows that you invested time and money to produce a result.
that result would be intelligence.
the amount of inteligence that was produced in you would demand that you first learn the basics of math , which you obviously missed out on.

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/30/11 05:37 PM

Quote:
After that 1s, I'm still applying the same 80N force, continuously for all the seconds up to 50.


if you wanted to determine the total force that you applied
in the above how would you put the above into a equation?

in your reply you use the words "cumulative force"
then you accuse me of claiming that total force is a force!!

in the above the only force there is is 80N
if you understand what cumulative force is and you can comprehend it , then you should also understand that the total force or the cumulative force applied to the 100 kg mass to accelerate the 100 kg mass during the 50 seconds would be 4000N

I never said that the force applied was 4000N you claimed that I did.

I used 80N in my calculation.
and I used 50 seconds in my calculation.

lets see you get an answer of 4000N without using the 50 seconds , remember you dont have time to work with.
you can find the acceleration rate
because you already know the force and the mass
and you already know the initial velocity and the final velocity at the end of 1 second which is .8 m/s because you know the acceleration rate of .8 m/s/s and the 100 kg mass will be accelerated to .8 m/s in 1 second , but thats all you can find.

so any total force calculation you can produce will need the time the force is applied to the mass.


lets think about it this way.
its a simple way to decide whos right me or you.

your car gets 1 meter to the gallon.

you need to travel 1000 meters in 50 seconds.

1000 (meters) / 50 (seconds)= 20 (meters per second)

your car gets 1 meter to the gallon.
so your car burns up 20 gallons of gas each second.

what would be the total amount of gas that you should have in your gas tank to travel the 1000 meters in 50 seconds?

my car gets the same mileage as your car

I would make sure I had 1000 gallons in my gas tank because that is the total amount of gas that I calculated that my car requires.

would you only use 80 gallons?

force is any influence that causes a mass to change its momentum.

burning gas can be described as the influence that causes the car to move.

the total amount of influence (gas)in the above is

20 gallons of gas each second x 50 seconds = 1000 gallons of gas

the total amount of force that accelerated the 100 kg mass to a velocity of 40 m/s in 50 seconds was

80N x 50 seconds = 4000N


have you ever considered that it might be your brainwashing that is influencing your logic?

your brain is rejecting things that conflict with the things that you have been taught.

and during this rejection period your brain is incapable of percieving events in a correct manner.

this is evident in the below reply of yours.

Quote:
Here's an explanation you can't argue with Paul.

1) I make an origami structure out of paper.
2) It's pretty strong, I can put a 8kg bottle of water on it without it collapsing
3) I put a heavier 9kg bottle on it, and it crushes into a pancake
4) I conclude that it can support 80N (weight of 8kg).
5) I insert this structure between the mass and the accelerator. It's like a buffer which the accelerator pushes on instead of directly on the mass.
6) The structure will not collapse during the entire 50s acceleration.
7) Therefore it is not experiencing any force greater than 90N.
8) Therefore there is no 4000N force on it.


total force kallog

not constant force.

80N is the constant force.

4000N is the total force

your brain is rejecting basic elements of the event because your brain is trying to devise a way to prove that the idea is wrong.

your brain cant find any logical means of accomplishing this so it relies on humiliation of its opponent and flawed logic.

this is something that is wide spread in the scientific community , it should be abolished as it causes buildings to fall , bridges to fall , and lives to be lost.

the ability to adapt to changes once found seems to be removed by the brainwashing that occurs as a student gets his or her education.

even if everything else that they are taught in school about physics shows that an event is possible , the brainwashing
tells them that the event isnt possible.

therefore all they rely on is what they have learned during the brainwashing and they toss all logic and the remainder of physics including physics math out the window.

judging from the replies you have recently made
that is the current state of rejection that your brain is in.







Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 09/30/11 07:27 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
Im smart, ,bla,bla,bla,

No. The point is that you were wrong that I didn't do my homework.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

2 bananas * 2 = 4 bananas.
Originally Posted By: paul

that is correct



Thank you!

Originally Posted By: paul

Originally Posted By: thefalliblefiend

2 bananas * 2 bananas = 4 bananas^2

incorrect

No. You don't understand it. That does not make it incorrect.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

1 N <> 1 Ns

Originally Posted By: paul

[not applicable]

ENTIRELY APPLICABLE! It's the simplified version of what you maintained in a post above.


Originally Posted By: thefalliblefiend

If you can't understand or at least accept this simple thing, any discussion with kallog or anyone else is wasted.

Originally Posted By: paul

I wouldnt say that , because it is yourself and kallog who seem incable of discussing physics due to a lack of basic logic.


My straight As in every math class from 4th grade through calculus (as well as physics) says I do understand. I won't mention the statics and mechanics where we did problems just like the ones you're talking about - and much more complicated. What you don't understand is that you're not just disagreeing with Kallog and me. You're disagreeing with every mathematician, engineer, and scientist on the planet.

Originally Posted By: thefalliblefiend

Let's try something even simpler ...
What is 2x * 2x?

Originally Posted By: paul

2x * 2x = 4x



I say it's 4x^2. But your answer is good. It's testable. Let's assume you are correct. What happens if, for example, x=3? Plug in 3 to your equation and see if you get the same thing on both sides.

Originally Posted By: paul


... image of grid omitted ...

in the image above its both clear and logical that
5 x 5 = 25


Correct as far as it goes, but 5x5 has NO dimensions. To include dimensions, let s mean 'square.'
Then we have 5s * 5 = 25s ...
in this case, the 5s means five squares (columns across a row), but the other 5 is five rows (of 5s in each row).

It's true I could always do to refresh my math skills. I do refresh my skills continually, but I could always do more. As I said, I use math nearly every single day of my life to solve real-world problems.

I *highly* recommend you look at the site http://projecteuler.net . You might find some of the problems interesting.

I know this seems incredible to you. But look at that problem above on 2x * 2x. If we can resolve this, then maybe we get around this impasse.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 01:16 AM

Quote:
No. You don't understand it. That does not make it incorrect.


2 bananas * 2 bananas = 4 bananas^2
I say the below is true
2 bananas * 2 bananas = 4 square bananas

then that would mean that if you wanted to cover your
living room floor with carpet you would use the above equation.

say the dimensions of your living room floor is.

2 ft * 2 ft = 4 ft^2 = 4 ft squared
it isnt 4 square ft
its 4 ft squared
correct?

its the exact same equation and result as your banana equation.
all I did was exchange the units of bananas with units of ft

2 bananas * 2 bananas = 4 bananas^2
2 ft * 2 ft = 4 ft^2

am I correct in assuming that you think the above is correct?

Quote:
What happens if, for example, x=3?


we were not using x as a number

x described units of a number

like 2 bananas

or 2 feet

or 2 Newtons

Quote:

I know this seems incredible to you. But look at that problem above on 2x * 2x. If we can resolve this, then maybe we get around this impasse.


in other words as long as I can say that you were right then we can continue correct?

thats the way purchased science works , not real science.

square feet
http://www.onlineconversion.com/forum/forum_1048966525.htm


Quote:
Answer: 2 bananas * 2 bananas = 4 bananas^2 (4 bananas squared)


its 4 square bananas not 4 bananas squared.





Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 01:41 AM

heres another teacher that doesnt even know the difference
between square feet and feet squared...

its really sad , our students are relying on teachers that dont even know the simplest of basic area calculation.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58411.html

Quote:
A student asked me this question and I don't know how to respond.

What is the difference between 2 square feet and 2 feet square?

I have tried looking in old math books but have not been able to come
up with a good answer. Thank you for helping.


reply


"2 feet square" refers to a square that is 2 feet on a side, that is,
2 feet by 2 feet.

"2 square feet" is a measure of area. It can refer to any shape (a
rectangle 1 foot by 2 feet, for instance).

The area of a 2-foot square is 4 square feet (2 feet * 2 feet).


so 2ft * 2ft = 4 sq ft
not 4 ft^2

4 ft^2 = 16 sq ft


Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 01:57 AM

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

1) Why use any of the formulas since they were derived by people he thinks are incompetent at math?

In a previous thread on this topic we avoided the use of momentum at all. That was because the law of conservation of momentum immediately disproves the whole idea, so that law is useless for showing that it works. It seems to be more acceptable now, but Paul's clearly avoiding it anyway. It think that's fine, and quite a challenge to cut out something you normally depend on and have to fend for yourself. But the problem became too complex to solve in a way we can both understand, which seems to be what's happening again.

Quote:

2) You guys are wasting time talking about your examples when there is a much more fundamental disagreement. That's

Yes, but it's boring to go back to step 1. Sometimes when we do I think we've got agreement, then it runs far off into total-disagreement-land too quickly to catch.

Quote:

3a) HOWEVER, when I had *my* issues, I didn't say that everyone else was wrong. Instead I pored over the book, worked problems, consulted other books, interrogated the teachers. I asked, "Why DO they think about it that way?"

Yea, you have to work it out yourself to be satisfied. Other people can give you ideas, but you won't blindly accept what they say when you already feel something's inconsistent. I try not to just tell facts to Paul because I know he won't blindly accept things either. The trouble is Paul's in an argument, he can't lose face by changing his mind and agreeing with me. So why would he put effort into trying to achieve that?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 02:14 AM

Quote:
I try not to just tell facts to Paul because I know he won't blindly accept things either. The trouble is Paul's in an argument, he can't lose face by changing his mind and agreeing with me. So why would he put effort into trying to achieve that?


kallog , if you tell me something that is true then I wont dissagree , the trouble is that you dont do that very often.

you take things way out of context in order to achieve your goals , even if it means the complete disregard of the simplest of logic.

like the following

Quote:
Yes, if someone parks their car on a bridge, the weight force it applies to the bridge will increase with time. After a few minutes it will have overloaded the bridge and it collapses.


bridges are supposed to withstand constant force.

the bridge has a constant force applied to it even if a car isnt on it.


remember gravity?

this is why material stresses are involved in bridge construction.

suppose they built bridges that they thought would only need to withstand the force of a car sitting on it.

thinking as you do that there are no constant forces acting on it.

and like your supposed inability to conceive total force having something to do with time.

you want to call it momentum force or impulse , but impulse it not what is causing the 100 kg mass to accelerate.

constant force is causing the mass to accelerate.



Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 02:24 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
After that 1s, I'm still applying the same 80N force, continuously for all the seconds up to 50.


if you wanted to determine the total force that you applied
in the above how would you put the above into a equation?

What does "total force" mean? If it means force * time, then the usual name is "impulse".

Deny the name if you like, but when you multiply a force by the time it's applied for, you're calculating an impulse. See Wikipedia.


In your gas example:
(1) The rate of decrease of volume = 20gallons/second
The total volume burnt is
(2) volume = 20gallons/second * 50 seconds
volume = 1000gallons

Notice how we didn't start with a volume, but a rate of change of volume (gallons/second, not gallons).



Anyway, we really have to stop wasting time until you use units correctly. Just treat them the same as numbers or algebraic variables:

2x * 3x = 6x^2 ( that's 6*(x^2) )
2m * 3m = 6m^2 (like measuring the area of a room)

2x * 3 = 6x
2N * 3 = 6N

2x * 3y = 6xy
2N * 3s = 6Ns
2gallons * 3seconds = 6gallon-seconds

2m/s * 3s = 6m
2gallons/second * 3seconds = 6gallons
2kg.m/s/s * 3s = 6kg.m/s
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 02:38 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
4 ft^2 = 16 sq ft


By convention that's wrong.
See Example 1 here

Do you know BEDMAS, BODMAS or PEMDAS? Calculate the exponent before doing multiplication.

4ft^2 = 4 * (ft^2)
Not
(4ft)^2
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 02:45 AM

Quote:
Notice how we didn't start with a volume, but a rate of change of volume (gallons/second, not gallons).


we didnt start with a volume because the equation finds volume.


Quote:
2m * 3m = 6m^2 (like measuring the area of a room)


you too huh.

2 anythings * 3 anythings = 6 anythings

not 6 anythings squared !!!

6 m^2 = 6m * 6m = 36 square meters

Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 02:45 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
even if it means the complete disregard of the simplest of logic.

Quote:
Yes, if someone parks their car on a bridge, the weight force it applies to the bridge will increase with time. After a few minutes it will have overloaded the bridge and it collapses.



That was sarcasm. The car applies a constant force to the bridge. The accelerator applies a constant force to the mass. Analogous systems.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 02:48 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
not 6 anythings squared !!!

6 m^2 = 6m * 6m = 36 square meters


"square meters" has exactly the same meaning as "meters squared" or "m^2".
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 02:49 AM

Quote:
That was sarcasm. The car applies a constant force to the bridge. The accelerator applies a constant force to the mass. Analogous systems.


not really , because the mass doesnt have anything it can push against to keep it from moving like the bridge that has the earth to push against.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 02:50 AM

Quote:
"square meters" has exactly the same meaning as "meters squared" or "m^2".


Wrong

you most likely have a calculator somewhere.

put 4 in your calculator then hit the x^2 button.

4^2 = 16





Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:02 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
put 4 in your calculator then hit the x^2 button.

4^2 = 16


You missed the whole point

4ft^2
= (4) * (ft^2)
<> (4*ft)^2

It's just the convention of math.

If you want to get 16 square feet then you should write
(4ft)^2
so people using the common convention know what you mean.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:02 AM

Quote:
4 ft^2 = 16 sq ft


By convention that's wrong.


which convention would that be , the learning math the wrong way convention.

LOL

heres a image that might help you to re-learn the right way to calculate area.


Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:07 AM

Originally Posted By: paul



Put units in and you get:
One side is 5ft
The other side is 5ft
Area = 5ft * 5ft
Area = 25ft^2
Area = 25 feet squared
Area = 25 square feet

Notice how the area is not 625 square feet.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:08 AM

Quote:

4ft^2 = (4) * (ft^2) <> (4*ft)^2


dont want to admit that your wrong kallog?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:09 AM

Quote:

Area = 5ft * 5ft
Area = 25 square feet


thats the only two thats correct.

in the image dont you see or wont your brain allow you to see that 5^2 = 25?



Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:10 AM

We're getting side tracked. Which of these do you agree with? We have to agree on all of them before we can do anything at all with math and units. Otherwise we can't communicate.


2x * 3x = 6x^2 ( that's 6*(x^2) )
2m * 3m = 6m^2 (like measuring the area of a room)

2x * 3 = 6x
2N * 3 = 6N

2x * 3y = 6xy
2N * 3s = 6Ns
2gallons * 3seconds = 6gallon-seconds

2m/s * 3s = 6m
2gallons/second * 3seconds = 6gallons
2kg.m/s/s * 3s = 6kg.m/s
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:17 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
in the image dont you see or wont your brain allow you to see that 5^2 = 25 sq ft?


25 sq ft
25 ft^2
25 square foot

ARE ALL EXACTLY THE SAME AREA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_foot

If you disagree you need a reference.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:21 AM

Quote:

2x * 3x = 6x^2 ( that's 6*(x^2) )

wrong
Quote:

2m * 3m = 6m^2 (like measuring the area of a room)

wrong

you are wrong , you keep making this mistake even though I have corrected this mistake of yours over and over again.

until you can accept that then I am trying to communicate with someone who is brainwashed to the degree that makes communication impossible.

Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:24 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:

2x * 3x = 6x^2 ( that's 6*(x^2) )

wrong
Quote:

2m * 3m = 6m^2 (like measuring the area of a room)

wrong


What are your answers?

Do you agree with everything else in the list? Once you agree with something we can put it behind us and waste less time.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:24 AM

Quote:
25 sq ft
25 ft^2
25 square foot

ARE ALL EXACTLY THE SAME AREA


no , 25 ft^2 is

25 ft * 25 ft = 625 sq ft

Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:27 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
no , 25 ft^2 is
25 ft * 25 ft = 625 sq ft


Look at the Wikipedia link I gave. It directly says you're wrong.

If you disagree with Wikipedia, find a reference saying you're right.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:27 AM

Quote:
2x * 3x = 6x^2 ( that's 6*(x^2) )


2x * 3x = 6x

not 6x^2

6x^2 = 36x

Quote:
2m * 3m = 6m^2 (like measuring the area of a room)


2m * 3m = 6m

not 6m^2

6m^2 = 36 sq meters



Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:32 AM

the wiki article is using the wrong units for sq ft
it is using ft^2 like you do.

Quote:
The square foot (plural square feet; abbreviated ft or sq ft)


its wrong!

probably made by someone who also doesnt know the difference.
most likely because he was taught it that way.

I would hope that you understand what a square measurement is.

1 sq ft = an area of 12 in * 12 in

12 in^2 = 1 sq ft

12 * 12 = 1 sq ft

to square a number you simply multiply the number by itself.

you might not even understand what cubed means because your understanding of a 2 dimensional measurement is flawed.

1 ft^3 = 12 in * 12 in * 12 in
1 ft^3 = 1 ft * 1 ft * 1 ft

a 3 dimensional measurement might confuse you I just thought you might want to consider how it would be affected by your use of a two dimensional measurement.



Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:44 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
the wiki article is using the wrong units for sq ft
it is using ft^2 like you do.


Summary:
I say 5 square feet = 5 ft^2

You say 5 square feet = 25 ft^2

Again, can you find a reference? Or any documented case of anyone anywhere using your way? Try looking at advertisements for apartments. I did.

Hang on! Why are we talking about this? Let's just not use words "square feet" or "square meters" or "square anythings". That'll solve it.

Going back to my list. Which do you agree with?

2x * 3x = 6x^2 [Paul says no]
2m * 3m = 6m^2 [Paul says no]

2x * 3 = 6x [Paul says ??]
2N * 3 = 6N [....]

2x * 3y = 6xy
2N * 3s = 6Ns
2gallons * 3seconds = 6gallon-seconds

2m/s * 3s = 6m
2gallons/second * 3seconds = 6gallons
2kg.m/s/s * 3s = 6kg.m/s
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:48 AM

Quote:
Summary:
I say 5 square feet = 5 ft^2

You say 5 square feet = 25 ft^2


point me to the post where I said 5 sq ft = 25 ft^2

I know better than that.

your summary is also wrong.

this is what I meant when I said that you dont say things that are true very often.

and that you take things out of context.




Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:53 AM

Originally Posted By: paul

1 ft^3 = 12 in * 12 in * 12 in
1 ft^3 = 1 ft * 1 ft * 1 ft


Yes

I ignored the other cases because they used "sq .." which is half of our trouble. We don't need that notation anywhere, so let's just never use it.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:55 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
[quote]
point me to the post where I said 5 sq ft = 25 ft^2


Sorry, my mistake. Anyway let's stop using "square.." or "sq .." entirely. We don't need them. Stick to ft^2 or other usual math notation.

Back to the list. I added one at the bottom:

2x * 3x = 6x^2 [Paul says no]
2m * 3m = 6m^2 [Paul says no]

2x * 3 = 6x
2N * 3 = 6N

2x * 3y = 6xy
2N * 3s = 6Ns
2gallons * 3seconds = 6gallon-seconds

2m/s * 3s = 6m
2gallons/second * 3seconds = 6gallons
2kg.m/s/s * 3s = 6kg.m/s

1ft^3 = 1ft * 1ft * 1ft [Paul says yes]
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 04:11 AM

Quote:
I ignored the other cases because they used "sq .."


thats because we were dealing with squares.

how many square feet are on the surface area of a 1 ft^3 cube?

there are 6 sq ft on its surface area.

how many square feet are on the surface area of a 2 ft^3 cube?

12 sq ft

if it was a origami cube and you opened it up.

there would be a piece of paper that has a 12 sq ft area on it.






Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 04:18 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
there are 6 sq ft on its surface area.


OK, but let's completely stop using:
sq ft
square feet
feet squared

because we don't follow the same conventions for their meanings. Instead use the unambiguous:

ft^2
or
ft
or whatever is appropriate.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 04:30 AM

Quote:
1ft^3 = 1ft * 1ft * 1ft [Paul says yes]


because its a cube.

there are 6 sq ft on that cubes surface.

1 sq ft * 1 sq ft * 1 sq ft = 1 ft^3

correct?

now suppose we use 2ft^2 * 2 ft^2 * 2 ft^2 = 64 sq ft area = 8ft^2 area


thats like saying

4 sq ft * 4 sq ft * 4 sq ft = 64 sq ft = 8ft^2 area


Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 04:34 AM

Paul,
I'm trying to understand how you're thinking about this.

Do you think that mathematicians, engineers, and scientists
1) agree with you on what you're saying?
OR
2) agree with us - but you also think they're wrong as well?
OR
3) don't know and don't care what they think or why they think it?

I'd like to keep this with the simplest example that illustrates the principle.

I say that 2x * 2x = 4x^2
You say 2x * 2x = 4x

I'm not asking you to accept something you don't agree with. I'm just asking you to check your math. That equal sign means that the left and right sides result in the same value, regardless of the value selected for x. So just pick a few values of x and see which one, if either, works.

I can think of a simpler example:
Do you agree that 1x * 1x is the same as x * x?
And do you think that x * x = x^2 (by definition)?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 04:39 AM

Quote:
Do you think that mathematicians, engineers, and scientists


Im only going by the evidence that I see in the math mistakes.

such as yours and kallogs mistakes.

if you have a yard stick.

place it on the floor , now mark its length.

now turn it 90 degrees from where it is.

now mark its length again.

mark off the 4 corners of the squared area you just measured.

why do you use 4 corners? , because a square is square and a square has 4 corners.

calculate the number of square feet inside the square.

now if you had 3ft^2 how many sq feet is that?

is it 3 sq ft?

or is it 9 sq ft?

I say its 9 sq ft = 3ft^2

just look at the ^2 and think about what it represents...

it means that its squared.

10^2 = 100














Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 04:50 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
Do you think that mathematicians, engineers, and scientists


Im only going by the evidence that I see in the math mistakes.

such as yours and kallogs mistakes.



But how do you know we're mistaken? All of this is covered in the first few weeks of an algebra 1 class. I'm guessing you have never taken algebra 1. Is that correct?

When I tell you that all the other mathematicians and scientists agree with what we're saying, do you think we're lying or mistaken?

Have you checked a book? Do you care what the books say?

If I pointed you to a professional PhD mathematician, would you accept his answer?

I'm asking you
a) Do you agree that 1x * 1x = x * x?
b) Do you agree that x * x = x^2?
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 04:52 AM

Originally Posted By: paul

calculate the number of square feet inside the square. (one yard on a side)

now if you had 3ft^2 how many sq feet is that?


It's not 3ft^2. Its (3ft)^2 =3ft * 3 ft = 9 ft^2.

Seriously. Check ANY algebra 1 book.










[/quote]
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 05:03 AM

Quote:
It's not 3ft^2. Its (3ft)^2 =3ft * 3 ft = 9 ft^2.


did you even try the calculator out to see what it says?

when you remove notation from a number by squaring it you remove the ^ notation symbol

just like .8000 -3

with the notation removed = 800.0

notice there's no trailing - notation

so 2^2 without notation = 4

thats why a 2 becomes 4 when you square it.

try it with your calculator.

put a 2 in it , then square the 2

it will say 4 because the 2 is now squared !!!

2 x 2 = 4

a number that is squared is that number multiplied by itself.






Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 05:15 AM

here's a chart on wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_number

Quote:
It's not 3ft^2. Its (3ft)^2 =3ft * 3 ft = 9 ft^2.


find 9^2 below

0^2 = 0
1^2 = 1
2^2 = 4
3^2 = 9
4^2 = 16
5^2 = 25
6^2 = 36
7^2 = 49
8^2 = 64
9^2 = 81
10^2 = 100

9^2 = 81

Quote:
3ft * 3 ft = 9 ft^2.


Quote:
No, 4 is not 2^2 without notation.


count the square feet , are there 81 sq ft in a 3 ft x 3 ft area?

you guys really could use a good refresher course.
TFF , your students may need one also.




Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 05:19 AM

Originally Posted By: thefalliblefiend
It's not 3ft^2. Its (3ft)^2 =3ft * 3 ft = 9 ft^2.


Originally Posted By: paul

did you even try the calculator out to see what it says?


It doesn't help to type into a calculator, if you don't type in the right thing. I get my students to solve problems without the calculator.

Originally Posted By: paul

when you remove notation from a number by squaring it you remove the ^ notation symbol

just like .8000 -3

with the notation removed = 800.0
notice there's no trailing - notation

Do you understand what that "trailing notation" means?
It's called "engineering notation." Not every calculator types it out exactly the same way.

.8000 -3 means .8000 times 10^-3

Some calculators will right it as .8000E-3
No kidding. Check the manual with your calculator.

Originally Posted By: paul

so 2^2 without notation = 4
thats why a 2 becomes 4 when you square it.


No, 4 is not 2^2 without notation. It's got nothing to do with the representation on a calculator. It's that 2^2 MEANS 2 times 2, or 2*2.


Originally Posted By: paul

put a 2 in it , then square the 2
it will say 4 because the 2 is now squared !!!
2 x 2 = 4
a number that is squared is that number multiplied by itself.

Okay, all that stuff is correct. Over the course of my life I've computed squares thousands of times and used many different kinds of calculators (and have programmed them).
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 05:22 AM

Quote:
It doesn't help to type into a calculator, if you don't type in the right thing. I get my students to solve problems without the calculator.


that darn calculator might tell on you !!!

it should at least be used to check answers.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 05:23 AM

Originally Posted By: paul


Originally Posted By: tff

It's not 3ft^2. Its (3ft)^2 =3ft * 3 ft = 9 ft^2.


find 9^2 below
...
9^2 = 81
...



Have you ever taken algebra I?
Do you have an algebra I book?

9ft^2 is not 9^2.
But I think your calculator is confusing you.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 05:24 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
It doesn't help to type into a calculator, if you don't type in the right thing. I get my students to solve problems without the calculator.


that darn calculator might tell on you !!!

it should at least be used to check answers.



Calculators can be used to check answers, but it's better to check other ways. I teach them that too. I also tell them to check their answers in the book.

Do you have an algebra 1 book handy?
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 05:39 AM

3ft^2 means 3 * (ft^2)

This is different from (3ft)^2

Can we get back to the even simpler example?

It seems like you agree that x*x = x^2. Is that correct?

Do you also agree that x * x is just another way to write 1x * 1x?
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 07:50 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
there are 6 sq ft on that cubes surface.


Seriously, stop using:
sq ft
square feet
feet squared

There's no need. Disagreeing about that is a pointless distraction from the real issue.

Just use math notation:

ft
ft^2
ft^3
or whatever is appropriate.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 08:03 AM

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

It seems like you agree that x*x = x^2. Is that correct?

Do you also agree that x * x is just another way to write 1x * 1x?


He won't agree to that, or anything that he didn't come up with himself. He can see you're going to use logic to trap him and won't get caught.

See he didn't agree to anything in my blue list of equations, except the one he wrote himself? Even the simplest ones he refused to agree to.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 08:15 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
I say its 9 sq ft = 3ft^2


You are applying the ^2 to the 3 instead of the ft.

The ^2 is on the ft, so that's what it applies to.

You already saw that Wikipedia, TFF and me all agree on this. Here are other people:

A 1000 ft^2 apartment plan. That's 1000000 square feet?

Another 1000ft^2 apartment. Could it be 1000ft wide?



Where is any other party that agrees with you?

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 02:36 PM

Quote:
Where is any other party that agrees with you?


there are others and I have put links to them.

did your brainwashing refuse to allow you to look!!

did your brainwashed brain even allow you to look at your own evidence?

http://www.lyberty.com/blog/articles/roomage/1013_sq_ft_2bdrm_chaucer.html

I did find 2 instances where he also uses ft^2 to describe sq ft

which is wrong.
but hes a salesman not a mathematician

1000 ft^2 = 1000000 sq ft

it is becoming a problem and there are others who have realized the errors that their teachers have instilled into their thought processes.

it is evident in the following wiki article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_(geometry)

even though the math on the page clearly shows that
a squared number = 4 times itself your brainwashing will not allow you to understand it.

perimeter of a square = p=t^2

where
p = perimeter
t = length of a side
^2 = squared ( ie... 5 X 5 = 25 )

and the area of a square

a=t^2

where
a = area
t = lenght of a side
^2 = squared ( ie... 5 X 5 = 25 )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root

Quote:
In mathematics, a square root of a number x is a number r such that r^2 = x, or, in other words, a number r whose square (the result of multiplying the number by itself, or r r) is x.For example, 4 is a square root of 16 because 4^2 = 16.


what you guys are doing is you are using notation wrongly.

your numbers are correct but your notation is wrong.

ie... 2ft * 2ft = 4ft^2

so what you are saying above is that
2ft * 2ft = the square root of 16 = 4ft^2


unless you guys are thinking of trying to patent the idea or a idea based on this idea , which I strongly sudgest that you dont try , theres really no way that you could possibly not understand what Im saying.

you try to contact someone about this to get funding and we may not finish this discussion.

I have found that discussing a idea is ok , but getting funding for a idea is impossible.



Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:24 PM


Paul,

It seems like you agree that x*x = x^2. Is that correct?

Do you also agree that x * x is just another way to write 1x * 1x?

Do you have an algebra I book?

Have you ever taken algebra I?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:27 PM

Quote:
It seems like you agree that x*x = x^2. Is that correct?


It may seem that way to you , because your brain must be telling you that.

show me where you got that impression.
also put the post # so that I can find where you took it out of context because I would not have given that impression unless I was describing how you or kallog would write it.


Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:30 PM

Originally Posted By: paul

I have found that discussing a idea is ok , but getting funding for a idea is impossible.



Maybe if you took algebra I, before showing potential sponsors any more equations, you would have better luck.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:38 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
It seems like you agree that x*x = x^2. Is that correct?


It may seem that way to you , because your brain must be telling you that.

show me where you got that impression.



In one msg you wrote:
Originally Posted By: paul

it means that its squared.

10^2 = 100


Originally Posted By: paul

2 x 2 = 4

a number that is squared is that number multiplied by itself.


so you agree that
10^2 = 100 (same thing as 10*10)

And you agree that
2 x 2 = 4 (same thing as 2^2)

That is you agree that for any integer, n

n^2 = n*n

Is that wrong?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:40 PM

no , the people who fund ideas such as this dont know math to the extent that they could determine if it would or would not work.

so they rely on people almost exactly like kallog to give them their opinion if the idea would or would not work.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:42 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
almost exactly like kallog to give them their opinion if the idea would or would not work.

And you don't think taking algebra 1 would help?
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:42 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
there are others and I have put links to them.

Please remind me where. So far the only thing suggesting it's wrong is you repeatedly saying it's wrong. No reasons, no references, just claims.

Quote:

2ft * 2ft = 4ft^2

Yes
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:47 PM

Quote:
That is you agree that for any integer, n

n^2 = n*n

Is that wrong?


no thats right

n*n = n^2

5 * 5 = 25

5^2 = 5 * 5

so if you do an equation as below

5 * 5 = 25^2

then you are saying that 5 * 5 = 25 * 25

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:58 PM

Quote:

2ft * 2ft = 4ft^2

Yes




when you say

2ft * 2ft = 4ft^2

you are saying

2ft * 2ft = 4ft * 4ft

Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 03:59 PM

Originally Posted By: paul

no thats right

n*n = n^2



Good. Do you think that if you change the variable from n to x that the equation is still true?




Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 04:02 PM

Quote:
Good. Do you think that if you change the variable



first you used integer which is a number
then you changed integer to variable

were not using a variable.

were using numbers

why is it that you want to use variables?

because variables vary?

you guys are so hardheaded that if you were to bump heads each of you would find yourselves in a separate galaxy.

do you see the way your brainwashed brain is affecting your logic?

no amount of information can cause your brain to accept the truth.

so if you do an equation as below

5 * 5 = 25^2

then you are saying that 5 * 5 = 25 * 25

so if you do an equation as below

5ft * 5ft = 25ft^2

then you are saying that 5ft * 5ft = 25ft * 25ft

so if you do an equation as below

5x * 5x = 25x^2

then you are saying that 5x * 5x = 25x * 25x



Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 04:11 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
Good. Do you think that if you change the variable


were not using a variable.



We WERE using a variable. That's what the n was.

I wrote n*n = n^2 and you agreed with it, perhaps not understanding what I was getting at.

That's one point of algebra - using symbols to express general relationships.

Every time you've written equations previously, whether p=mv or whatever, you have used variables. And the point of this is that if mathematics is to be consistent you have to apply the same rules regardless of whether you are manipulating numbers or variables or functions.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 04:18 PM

this is sort of like watching how a person whos brain is in denial mode reacts to problems.
I find it interesting to observe.

here is what you originaly wrote...

Quote:
That is you agree that for any integer, n

n^2 = n*n


and I agreed because its correct , its true , its logical.

Quote:
We WERE using a variable. That's what the n was.

I wrote n*n = n^2 and you agreed with it, perhaps not understanding what I was getting at.


Quote:
The integers (from the Latin integer, literally "untouched", hence "whole": the word entire comes from the same origin,



Quote:
In mathematics, a variable is a value that may change within the scope of a given problem or set of operations.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 04:29 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
this is sort of like watching how a person whos brain is in denial mode reacts to problems.
I find it interesting to observe.



Paul,

Everything you have written betrays a thorough lack of understanding of the most elementary mathematics.

You keep making rude taunts to me and to kallog, but almost everything you have written betrays a thorough lack of understanding of the most elementary mathematics.

Take algebra 1 and quit making a fool of yourself - or keep spouting stupid crap. Mathematics is a very beautiful thing, Paul, and a very useful thing to master.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 04:43 PM

then maybe you should master it , and stop letting it master you.

after all it is what it is.

its mathematics , you have allowed teachers to prevent you from mastering mathematics.

Quote:
and quit making a fool of yourself


I have presented plenty of evidence that supports my logic.

you and kallog have only shown how yourselves and others have been taught wrongly.

rather than using numbers to try and show you your error
I will use words , it might help to break the barrier your brain has thrown up to shield itself due to its brainwashing.

two times two equals four.

two plus two equals four.

two squares plus two squares equal four squares

two squares times two equal four squares

if I count the number of squares in four square feet I find that there are four squares.

if I think about two square feet laid out in a straight line
I can visualize two squares.

but two squares is not square.

if I want to make a square using squares with a area of one square foot I need to use four squares.

if I visualize what I made using the four squares I see one square.

inside the square there are four squares.

four squares in a square equal four squares.

two squares times two in a square equal four squares

two square foot areas times two in a square equals four square foot areas

and four square foot areas in a square equals an area two feet squared

(two feet) x (two feet) = four feet
(two feet squared) x (two feet squared) = four feet squared

thus the below is not correct , not true , not logical

(two feet) x (two feet ) = four feet squared

just like

2ft * 2ft = 4ft^2 is not correct.

but

2ft^2 * 2ft^2 = 4ft^2 is correct

because 2ft^2 = 4 sq ft

so

4 ft * 4 ft = 16 sq ft = 4ft^2



Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 05:32 PM

Originally Posted By: paul

when you say
2ft * 2ft = 4ft^2
you are saying
2ft * 2ft = 4ft * 4ft


No, that's the point.

2ft * 2ft = 4 * ft * ft

The ^2 only applies to the ft because that's where the ^2 symbol is.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 05:47 PM

Quote:

(two feet) x (two feet) = four feet
(two square feet) x (two square feet) = four square feet

thus the below is not correct , not true , not logical
(two feet) x (two feet ) = four feet squared
2ft * 2ft = 4ft^2 is not correct.


wow
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 05:52 PM

where did I write that?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 06:13 PM

Quote:
The ^2 only applies to the ft because that's where the ^2 symbol is.


maybe you should use the ^2 where it makes more sense.
because your not squaring feet your squaring a number.
feet is the units.
it makes no sense to square units.
youll never get a correct answer.


like 2 bananas x 2 bananas = 2^2 bananas = 4 bananas

2 squared * bananas = 4 bananas

2ft * 2ft = 2^2ft = 4 sq feet

2 squared * ft = 4 sq feet


Quote:
2ft * 2ft = 4 * ft * ft


how much is ft * ft?

wouldnt that be squaring the ft

when you should be squaring the number.

4 times ft times ft = 4 ft
because ft does not have a numeric value it is a unit
4 is the value , so you should square the 4
and if you square the only value you have you get

4 x 4 = 16


you said you had a problem understanding why they did things the way they did when you first started math.

its because that is the way they were taught to do it so they just passed it on to you.

now your remembering the way it was before.

that is the correct way.

your problem is that if you teach your students the correct way and their teachers in the future dont understand it
they will get bad grades.

so now you must teach them flawed logic.



Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 06:59 PM

Paul, you're a waste of time. Learning mathematics is well worth the effort - an effort you have not taken.

The only evidence you have presented is that you don't understand the very limited reading you have done on the Internet.

Take a class in algebra 1.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 07:03 PM

you dont have to believe me.
just tell me how many square feet are in a 4ft^2 area.

and how many ones are in 4^2

and what does 4^2 represent?

most importantly , tell me how do you square a number.









Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 07:24 PM

Paul, I have tried to explain it to you. You are not interested in understanding, because you think you already know it, despite the fact that you have never taken a class in it.

From your perspective, it could be that I have not gotten a master's in engineering math, that I have not taught and tutored math, that I have not read many books on math both in and outside the class, that I have not solved numerous problems in various mathematical disciplines, that I do not use math nearly every day of my life.

But you gotta know that *YOU* have not.

You're just going through the motions. What creationists are to science, you are to mathematics. I won't waste on more second discussing this with you.

Take a class in algebra 1.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/01/11 07:25 PM

you dont have to believe me.
just tell me how many square feet are in a 4ft^2 area.

and how many ones are in 4^2

and what does 4^2 represent?

most importantly , tell me how do you square a number.

see , you wont answer the simple questions above because you know its a trap , if you do answer them I can compare your answers to your past replies and in doing so it will show that you are wrong.


Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 02:56 AM

Let me have a go answering

Originally Posted By: paul

just tell me how many square feet are in a 4ft^2 area.

4

Quote:

and how many ones are in 4^2

16

Quote:

and what does 4^2 represent?

16

Quote:

most importantly , tell me how do you square a number.

Multiply it by itself

Quote:

see , you wont answer the simple questions above because you know its a trap , if you do answer them I can compare your answers to your past replies and in doing so it will show that you are wrong.

I accept everything TFF has said on this subject. I know that you can't be trapped when using a consistent system so do your worst.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 03:08 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
maybe you should use the ^2 where it makes more sense.
because your not squaring feet your squaring a number.
feet is the units.
it makes no sense to square units.


http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/units.html

Did you ever wonder why you're the only person on the planet who was blessed with the true understanding of how to multiply measurements? Even the people who invented the things you're using somehow didn't understand it. But you do. Did God give you this insight in a vision, or is it just the default state of not ever stopping to think about it?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 12:44 PM

Quote:
just tell me how many square feet are in a 4ft^2 area.

4

Quote:

and how many ones are in 4^2

16

Quote:

and what does 4^2 represent?

16

Quote:

most importantly , tell me how do you square a number.

Multiply it by itself

so 4^2 = 16
but
4ft^2 = 4

therefore

2 x 2 = 16 because 4^2 = 16

and if I add units to describe what the numbers represent

2ft x 2ft = 4ft^2 because 4ft^2 = 4

well kallog , since you are incapable of seeing the error
in your logic above I can find no reason to think that you
are a worthy opponent when it comes to a discussion

involving math.







Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 01:20 PM

suppose I wanted to buy enough wood to put new flooring on a room in my house.

I measure the room

its 20 ft x 20 ft = 400ft^2

I submit my order to the lumber yard

the order reads 400ft^2

he is used to orders that read in sq ft

but he knows how to build a square

and he knows what something squared means

so the man who pulls the order uses a calculator and pokes in 400
into his calculator then he presses the square button to square the 400.

and this tells him how many square feet of board Im ordering

he then sends me 160,000 sq ft

the person who took my order thinks like you so
I was only charged for 400 sq ft , he just thinks
that 400ft^2 is the way you write 400 sq ft

so he writes 400ft^2 on the order slip that I take to the
lumber yard.

I see money here , all I need to do is buy lumber from people
who think like you and I can get rich by selling their extremely cheap
lumber because they sell lumber
by the ft^2 at the same price that others sell it for by the sq ft.





Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 03:29 PM

Quote:

so 4^2 = 16 [yes]
4ft^2 = 4 [no]
2 x 2 = 16 [no] because 4^2 = 16 [yes]
2ft x 2ft = 4ft^2 [yes] because 4ft^2 = 4 [no]

As I've said before, the ^2 applies only to the "ft", not to the 4. Your reasoning above doesn't work when read that way. This is the common convention. It's not a natural truth, it's just an arbitrary agreement on how we write math so people can understand each other.

If you want to square the 4 but not the ft, then put the squared symbol on the 4 and not on the ft.

4^2 ft
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 03:38 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
the order reads 400ft^2
...
he is used to orders that read in sq ft
...
he then sends me 160,000 sq ft
...
I was only charged for 400 sq ft , he just thinks
that 400ft^2 is the way you write 400 sq ft


Can you show me any evidence of anyone, anywhere, ever who considers considers any of the following represent different areas?

400 square feet
400 sq ft
400 ft2

Or is it just you?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 04:18 PM



299,792,458 m / s x 299,792,458 m / s = c^2

the speed of light squared is
89875517873681764m/s

not

89875517873681764m/s^2






b=8.5
b^2 = 75

like

4 = 4
4^2 = 16

2ft x 2ft = the square root of 16 sq ft

which is 4ft^2

is not correct



http://www.math.com/school/subject1/lessons/S1U1L9DP.html

we are getting smarter arent we kallog?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_number

this is where this all started

Quote:
Answer: 2 bananas * 2 bananas = 4 bananas^2 (4 bananas squared)


4 bananas squared
4 bananas^2

but

4 bananas^2 = 16 bananas
and 2 bananas x 2 bananas = 4 bananas

his problem and yours also is that he is squaring the bananas

bananas x bananas = bananas

not squared bananas

if he would have said that
2 bananas x 2 bananas = sqr of 4 bananas squared or sqr 4 bananas^2
he would have neen right














Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 05:30 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
the speed of light squared is
89875517873681764m/s
not
89875517873681764m/s^2

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?


Can you tell me how you expect me to simplify these? I'm not asking what you think they should be, but what you expect me to think.

4^2

4^2 ft

4 ft^2

4^2 ft^2

(4ft)^2

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 05:33 PM

Quote:
Neither


then what is the speed of light squared then kallog?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

The speed of light in vacuum, usually denoted by c

notice it does not say c^2

Its value is 299,792,458 metres per second

so if you square c it becomes c x c = 89875517873681764m/s

but in your illogical world that you exist in it may be

only 4 bananas^2

correct?




Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 05:42 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
the speed of light squared = 8.98755179 1016 m2 / s2

thats acceleration kallog , not speed!!!
m/s/s is acceleration not speed !!!
speed is just m/s


It's not speed or acceleration, it's m^2/s^2.

Please state more clearly that you believe the Google calculator is wrong. You can test it yourself by typing in "speed of light squared".
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 05:52 PM

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.


Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 06:01 PM

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 ,
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 06:12 PM

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?



Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 06:17 PM


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?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 06:35 PM

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







Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 06:44 PM

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.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 06:51 PM

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




Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 07:01 PM

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.


Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 07:05 PM

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?
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 07:10 PM

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?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 07:29 PM

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.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 07:31 PM

10 mph is not acceleration it is a velocity.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/02/11 07:40 PM

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?


Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 12:59 AM

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.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 01:27 PM

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














Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 01:52 PM

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.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 02:22 PM

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.

Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 03:47 PM

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?

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 05:32 PM

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.









Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 05:42 PM

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) = ?
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 05:47 PM

Originally Posted By: paul

^4^ = 4 squared


The ^ is only to write easily on this forum which doesn't have a 2 button. Of course it's not the actual symbol anybody writes math with on paper or in books!
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 05:51 PM

Quote:
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?


4 ft^2 = 2 ft * 2 ft = 4 ft^2
4^2 ft^2 = ?
(4ft)^2 = ?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 05:54 PM

Quote:
which doesn't have a 2 button


then what is the square button?

what should we use for a square?

4 square is not equal to 4 squared


2 ft * 2 ft = 4 ft^2

in the above if you would have had a symbol to use that
describes a square would you have used it instead of using the symbol that describes a number that is to be multiplied by itself?

ie...

4 ( the symbol for square ) ft
or
4 ft( the symbol for square )


Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 05:56 PM

Originally Posted By: paul

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


Actually that's not far off. Except you randomly mixed up "square" and "squared" making it undecipherable.

4^2 = four squared
4^2 ft = four squared feet [not four square feet]
4 ft^2 = four foot squared [OK]
4^2 ft^2 = four squared foot squared
(4ft)^2 = four squared foot squared
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 05:59 PM

Originally Posted By: paul

what should we use for a square?
4 square is not equal to 4 squared


Or we could stop using words like "foot" and "squared". They're always vulnerable to impreciseness or misunderstanding.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 06:01 PM

Originally Posted By: paul

in the above if you would have had a symbol to use that
describes a square would you have used it instead of using the symbol that describes a number that is to be multiplied by itself?


What on earth is a "square" if it's not the multiplication of a number by itself????

OK it can also be the multiplication of any other expression by itself. Such as x^2 or ft^2

But it's the same meaning! ft^2 is the same as square foot or foot squared. It's what you get when you multiply ft by ft, such as:

3ft*4ft = 3*4*ft*ft = 12ft^2
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 06:02 PM

Quote:
Or we could stop using words like "foot" and "squared". They're always vulnerable to impreciseness or misunderstanding.


I think It would be better to have a symbol to use , look at all the confussion it causes.


ie...

how would you write 4 square meters?

and

how would you write 4 meters squared?

using only numbers and symbols and units

no words allowed !!!

previously you used

4ft^2 for (four foot squared)

so what would you do differently for four square foot?



Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 06:07 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
I think It would be better to have a symbol to use , look at all the confussion it causes.

I agree.


ie...

Quote:

how would you write 4 sq meters? [4m2]
how would you write 4 meters squared? [Not sure what you mean by this (words!), could be 4m2 or 16m2 ]



Quote:

previously you used
4ft^2 for (four foot squared)
so what would you do differently for four square foot? [again unclear, either 42ft or 4ft2 ]

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 06:12 PM

Quote:
how would you write 4 meters squared? [Not sure what you mean by this (words!), could be 4m2 or 16m2 ]


exactly my point...

4m^2 = 4m * 4m = 16m

but

4 square meters

is only 4 sq meters

a single square meter is 1 meter square

1m * 1m = 1m^2

so 4 of the 1m^2 = 4 sq meters

and if you write

4m^2 for 16 meters
and
4m^2 for 4 meters

you have 2 different meanings.










Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 06:23 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
4m^2 = 4m * 4m = 16m


There's no confusion if you do it the correct way. I've told you countless times. Do you not know what I'm saying or do you not want to look it up? The whole complicated system for all units of any quantities is just one simple rule:

Treat units like variables

That's all it is. That allows you to work with any units without getting confused. You don't need to try and decide if seconds are already included in m/s/s or whatever.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 06:25 PM

Quote:
3ft*4ft = 3*4*ft*ft = 12ft^2


above you see the problem in communication

I know that 12ft^2 = 12 ft * 12 ft = 144 ft

so all of a sudden 3 ft * 4 ft = 144 ft
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 06:32 PM

Originally Posted By: paul

I know that 12ft^2 = 12 ft * 12 ft = 144 ft

Why are you multiplying 12 by itself? There's no squared symbol on the 12, it doesn't get squared. Also, why are you ignoring one of the ft? There are two, but you dropped one arbitrarily.

It's not 12^2 ft. That would be 144 ft
It's 12ft^2. It's a different quantity.

Treat units like variables

Also you need to use PEMDAS whenever you're doing math. You didn't use it correctly above.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 06:58 PM

Quote:

It's not 12^2 ft. That would be 144 ft
It's 12ft^2. It's a different quantity.


just for clarity could you put the two in words so that
I can better understand how they are pronounced.
yet you say they have different quantities.

12^2 ft = ?

12ft^2 = ?

the ^2 must have different meanings because the two
above have the same symbol in them.

and using the symbol as it is commonly used the following
is true.

12 squared ft
is exactly the same as
12 feet squared

ie...

the only thing above that can be multiplied by itself is the number 12

try to multiply ft*ft what you always get is ft !!
now try (ft*ft*ft*ft) / ft^2 * (ft-ft-ft) = ft
try any combination you always get ft

guess what ft hasnt got a numeric value !!!

so remove ft and you have

12 squared
and
12 squared

each of the above = 144





Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 07:00 PM

Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: paul

I know that 12ft^2 = 12 ft * 12 ft = 144 ft


... PEMDAS ...


PEMDAS is part of the obvious conspiracy among all the world's existing engineers, scientists, teachers, and mathematicians.

Some people think "logic" is any idea that happens to come into their heads.

Anyway, I'm off to tutor a couple kids in pre-calc.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 07:04 PM

bye
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/03/11 07:19 PM

Quote:
Treat units like variables


units do not change so they cannot vary thus they cannot be variables.

meters does not morph into something other than meters.

therefore you can multiply , add , subtract or whatever you want to a unit and it never changes.

meters will always be meters , to sudggest something different is ignorant.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 04:09 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
Treat units like variables


units do not change so they cannot vary thus they cannot be variables.

You already treat numbers like variables, 3 doesn't change but you still square it the same as you'd square x. Come on Paul, why don't you focus on the issue instead of looking for word tricks?

Quote:

meters does not morph into something other than meters.

1m = 100cm
If you deny that then end of thread.
See how 1 is not the same as 100, but with the units included, the two sides of the equation are (undeniably) equal?


Quote:

therefore you can multiply , add , subtract or whatever you want to a unit and it never changes.

That's the basic mistake you can't seem to let go of. If units can't be operated on, why on earth do you think we have things like:

12 ft^2
15 psi (pounds / in^2)
20 ft-lb (20 ft-lb is not the same as 20lb, ask any mechanic)
20 Nm
40 m/s (surely the same as 40m.s or 40m)
etc..

Don't you see that these units aren't just made up because they sound like words, they have a reason.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 04:13 AM

Originally Posted By: paul

the only thing above that can be multiplied by itself is the number 12

try to multiply ft*ft what you always get is ft !!


Finally you acknowledge that ft^2 means ft*ft!! Right?

12 ft^2
Clearly the 12 is not being squared (PEMDAS, look it up). You say ft^2 = ft, so your answer is really
12 ft
not
144 ft


To check you know PEMDAS, make sure you agree to these:
2 * 4^2 = 32
(2*4)^2 = 64
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 04:51 AM

Quote:
Finally you acknowledge that ft^2 means ft*ft!! Right?


wrong

ft^2 must have a number in front of it to be something.

ft^2 is nothing but units and symbols that have no value.

its exactly like saying

nothing^2 = nothing and being correct.

Quote:
To check you know PEMDAS


I write correct equations.

you and TFF dont.

Quote:
12 ft^2
Clearly the 12 is not being squared


its clear to me because of the ^2 , because I know what 12 ft^2 (twelve foot squared ) means.

plus if the 12 wasnt to be squared then why was it included into the 12 ft^2

why not just put
12 ft?

when TFF wrote

2bananas * 2 bananas = 4bananas^2 ( FOUR BANANAS SQUARED)

what do you think he really meant?

after all he did clearly WRITE IT OUT when he wrote
( FOUR BANANAS SQUARED )
to describe what his answer meant.

what do the words ( FOUR BANANAS SQUARED) mean to you?
















Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 08:30 AM

Originally Posted By: paul

ft^2 is nothing but units and symbols that have no value.

People use ft^2 all the time. They also use s^2, and you use it too to describe acceleration. It's not meaningless. a ft^2 is the area of a square with 1ft side lengths.

ft is not a unit of area. If you have a 1000ft apartment, you have to decide which distance is 1000ft. Maybe it's the length, or the perimeter, or something else. But it's not the area.


Quote:

its clear to me because of the ^2 , because I know what 12 ft^2 (twelve foot squared ) means.

You actually will get ripped off if you try to by some carpet or an apartment or whatever. Every other person thinks 12ft^2 means something different to what you think it means. The confusion you talked about in the timber shop won't occur in the real world because nobody else thinks 12ft^2 is 144ft.


Quote:

2bananas * 2 bananas = 4bananas^2 ( FOUR BANANAS SQUARED)

what do you think he really meant?


Apply PEMDAS and you will know what it means to me.




Do you agree to these:
2 * 4^2 = 32
(2*4)^2 = 64
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 08:37 AM

12ft^2 = 144ft [says Paul]
1ft = 12in [everyone knows]
12*(12in)^2 = 1728in [substitute 12in for ft]
144in^2 = 1728in
20736in = 1728in [square the 144 because in^2 is meaningless]
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 02:36 PM

Quote:
People use ft^2 all the time.


no they dont , they use a (number) then they put (ft) in as the units that communicates what the number represents then if they want to communicate that the number is to be multiplied by itself they put (^2) following the units.

Quote:
Every other person thinks 12ft^2 means something different to what you think it means.

and they are probably republicans judging from the IQ in the republican states , I have considered you to be a republican
because of your crooked ways of convincing people that your side of the discussion is correct , much like the way the tobacco industry convinced people that tobacco products were safe and the way that DDT was said to be harmless in the past.

I picture people like yourself and TFF as the men spraying DDT on children in a swimming pool saying its good for you breath it in , its harmless.

and there are also alot of people who vote republican , therefore just because a large number of people have flawed logic doesnt mean that their logic is logical.

Quote:
12ft^2 = 144ft [says Paul]

yes , it is.
just like
5^2 = 25 below , notice the image is using squares
there are 25 squares in the image.
each of the 25 squares could be any unit of measurement
such as feet or meters.


see the 5^2 = 25 above?
in your mind 5ft^2 is only 5 * ft^2
you dont multiply the 5 only the ft , and the feet have no value.

which is pretty stupid !!!

http://whamit.dlp.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/467px-Five_Squared.png

the above image is from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

I choose to believe people who tell the truth about math.

and beside any grade school student , that hasnt been poisoned by flawed logic coming from people such as TFF or yourself would easily be able to understand that.

http://web.mit.edu/

but that is the entire problem with you and TFF , you have poisoned logic caused by attending schools that teach poisoned logic.

your flawed logic is like a virus that spreads to others infecting them with your flawed logic.

and that is how you and TFF became infected , so it just spreads and spreads until someone finds the cure.

and the cure is logic.



Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 03:34 PM

Quote:
12ft^2 = 144ft [says Paul]


You measure area in ft? I wonder how big a 1000ft apartment would be. Did you ever see anyone else anywhere use feet as a unit of area? Ever? I know you won't be able to show me any examples, but can you even remember any?


Quote:

in your mind 5ft^2 is only 5 * ft^2

Yes! You just wrote the exact same thing. Just as 3x = 3*x. There is an implied multiplication between the 5 and the ft.


Paul, there's no way you can do any calculations with physical quantities unless you use some consistent way to operate on them. The easiest is the common convention that nearly everybody has used for hundreds of years.

Treat units like variables

You already treat numbers like variables. You can already say 3*3=3^2 the same way as x*x=x^2. Now just add m*m=m^2. That's really all it is. Just doing that will instantly make all these calculations work exactly the way me and TFF say. You can test it on anything and it will always work exactly the same. Even on the 5x5 grid it will work exactly as MIT says.

Your way leads to measuring area in ft.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 03:45 PM

Quote:
You measure area in ft? I wonder how big a 1000ft apartment would be.


no I dont, I use square feet , you use feet squared.

you are wrong.
I would say 1000 square feet

you would say 1000 ft squared

Im right , your wrong.

its that simple.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 03:52 PM

Paul, the simplest thing in this thread is you. Your ignorance does not translate into fact. You're wrong because you are completely and utterly ignorant. My kids knew more math than you than when they were in 5th or 6th grade. The kids I tutor know more math than you - before I tutor them. Most of them have the good sense to realize they don't understand. You just keep repeating stupid crap over and over.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 03:55 PM

Originally Posted By: paul

I would say 1000 square feet

you would say 1000 ft squared


Oh so that's why you were looking for a symbol for "square".

Is there any way you can write an area without words?

Quote:

Im right , your wrong.

In this case we're both right. The meaning of "feet squared" or "square feet" is nothing but a human-invented language convention. That means whatever everybody else does is automatically right. Simply because it's a convention. Both terms mean the same thing because just about everybody uses them to mean the same thing. Obviously neither term means anything for non-English speakers.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 03:56 PM

Quote:
You can already say 3*3=3^2


yes I can

and I can say 2ft * 2ft = 2ft^2 (two foot squared)

that is why I say the below is not correct

2bananas * 2bananas = 4bananas^2 (four bananas squared)

ta da...

just like above , you see you do agree if I catch you off guard...

done deal , thanks.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 04:05 PM

Quote:
The kids I tutor know more math than you - before I tutor them. Most of them have the good sense to realize they don't understand.


and after you tutor them they know more of what you know.

and what you know is

2bananas * 2bananas = 4bananas^2 (((( FOUR BANANAS SQUARED )))

now your all alone in this because even kallog understands that
a number * the same number = that number squared.

thats how a square number is formed , it forms a square.

if you square 4 bananas you get 16 bananas !!!







Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 04:11 PM


"2bananas * 2bananas = 4bananas^2 (((( FOUR BANANAS SQUARED )))"

yes. THE SAME THING THAT EVERY MATHEMATICIAN, ENGINEER, SCIENTIST, AND MATH TEACHER TEACHER ON THE ENTIRE PLANET KNOWS - AS WELL AS EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER ACTUALLY STUDIED MATHEMATICS.

You're not arguing over something hard. This is a trivial result. No wonder you can't get funding for your projects. Anyone who spends two minutes listening to your ignorant drivel would be wondering what kind of idiot factory produces an imbecile like you.

Meanwhile, I take students who are getting Ds and Fs and produce from them students who get As and Bs. And guess what? I also get *MY* research funded. You know why? Because unlike you I actually try to understand it instead of insisting that the first stupid thing that comes out of my head is The Truth.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 04:30 PM

Quote:
I take students who are getting Ds and Fs and produce from them students who get As and Bs.


that only shows that the entire educational system is flawed.
once the students move out of the flawed system and into a educational system such as MIT they will have to re-learn logic of fail.

it would be much easier and more beneficial to the students if the grade school students and high school students were not introduced to flawed logic in the first place.

Quote:
And guess what? I also get *MY* research funded.


that only shows that the people who fund your research have flaws like you do.

if they can understand that the below is true.

2bananas * 2bananas = 4bananas^2 ((( FOUR BANANAS SQUARED )))

then they have flawed logic also.

which says that we live in a world that uses flawed logic to determine who gets funding for their research.

I dont have flawed logic so that is why I dont get funding.

If logic tells me that I can get more energy out than I put into something then I trust my logic and I apply for funding.

if those who fund research have flawed logic then they would simply say that my idea isnt logical to them.

and I wouldnt get funding.







Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 04:47 PM

Quote:
THE SAME THING THAT EVERY MATHEMATICIAN, ENGINEER, SCIENTIST, AND MATH TEACHER TEACHER ON THE ENTIRE PLANET KNOWS


show me a few instances where this is clearly evident.

or find a image like the below image that clearly shows that
5*5=25^2 ((( 25 SQUARED )))
the correct image below shows that
5*5=5^2 ((( 5 SQUARED )))

note: please dont use any of your places of learning
or your students.



surely you will have no problem finding some type of evidence as every MATHEMATICIAN, ENGINEER, SCIENTIST, AND MATH TEACHER TEACHER ON THE ENTIRE PLANET KNOWS that 5*5=25^2


LOL
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 05:07 PM

here is a math tutor web site.

you can refresh your skills here.
http://www.math.com/tables/geometry/areas.htm

Quote:
Area is measured in "square" units. The area of a figure is the number of squares required to cover it completely, like tiles on a floor.

Area of a square = side times side. Since each side of a square is the same, it can simply be the length of one side squared.

If a square has one side of 4 inches, the area would be 4 inches times 4 inches, or 16 square inches. (Square inches can also be written in2.)



not inches SQUARED

SQUARED
is not the same as
SQUARE

when you wrote ((( four bananas SQUARED )))

you were WRONG.

and there is no volume of insult or trickery that can
force that wrong to be a right.


Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 05:17 PM

Or it could be that you don't get funding, because your own logic is flawed and you are mathematically incompetent and too egotistical to admit you're uneducated.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 05:25 PM

your educated !

if I had never went to any school.
and you attended schools for the past 40 years

and I said that

2*2=4

and you said that

2*2=16

which is what you said.


I would lean towards the idea that you only attended those schools and walked away with less than what I achieved by not attending a school.


but dont believe me , and I wont believe you.

just post some evidence from all of the people in the entire world that know your correct to show that you were correct when you said
2bananas * 2bananas = 4bananas^2 ((( four bananas squared)))







Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 05:51 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
your educated !
and you said that

2*2=16

which is what you said.



I *never* said any such thing and neither did kallog. Neither did we say anything from which this could be reasonably inferred.

You have demonstrated that presenting evidence to you is irrelevant.
1. You refuse to look in the frigging book!
2. You don't even understand the sources you yourself post!
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 08:34 PM

Quote:
2bananas * 2bananas = 4bananas^2 ((( four bananas squared)))


thats the same exact thing as saying

2*2=16

because

2anythings*2anythings = 4anythings

and when you square 4 bananas ((( four bananas squared)))

you have 16 bananas

when you wrote ((( four bananas squared))) did you mean
((( four bananas squared))) or do we need to use some other language along with PEDMAS or PEMDAS or PENGUINS to figure out what you were trying to say?





Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 09:10 PM

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


thats the same exact thing as saying

2*2=16

because

2anythings*2anythings = 4anythings

and when you square 4 bananas ((( four bananas squared)))

you have 16 bananas

when you wrote ((( four bananas squared))) did you mean
((( four bananas squared))) or do we need to use some other language along with PEDMAS or PEMDAS or PENGUINS to figure out what you were trying to say?



You're not even trying to understand. It's no wonder you won't take an algebra class or consult a book, before mangling mathematics.

It is not the same thing. The feet ARE the 'anythings.'
2ft * 2ft = 4 ft^2

In this case the square only applies to the ft, not the 4.

2ft * 2ft is the same as

2*ft * 2*ft (because 2ft MEANS 2*ft)

We can re-arrange using the commutative property

2*2 * ft*ft = 2^2 * ft^2 = 4 * ft^2 = 4ft^2

Almost every HS student learns this by 8th grade. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you were either home-schooled or didn't do very well in your math classes.

You just make stuff up, because it makes sense to you and then claim that it's logical - because
1. You're too lazy to look it up,
2. You don't know what "logic" is and confuse it with any stupid idea that comes into your head, and
3. You are too intellectually dishonest to admit you don't understand.

What do you know the guys who understand math get the problem right and the guy who doesn't know his head from his ass continues to make a fool of himself.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 10:28 PM

I know your just trying to not say that your wrong.

work the following 3 equations.

2ft^2 * 2ft^2 =

and

2ft * 2ft =

and

2 sq ft * 2 sq ft =

then compare the answers

I get

2ft^2 * 2ft^2 = 4ft^2
and
2ft * 2ft = 4 ft
and
2 sq ft * 2 sq ft = 4 sq ft

notice in all 3 above I used the same units in my
answer because thats the way its done.
its the way that makes sense.

and all 3 above are correct.

once you do the equations you will clearly see your error or the error of those who taught you or the way you learned it.

Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 11:29 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
I know your just trying to not say that your wrong.

False. I was attempting to explain how every mathematicians, scientist, and engineer on the planet does the math.


Originally Posted By: paul

work the following 3 equations.

2ft^2 * 2ft^2 = 4 ft^4
and
2ft * 2ft = 4 ft^2
and
2 sq ft * 2 sq ft = 4 ft^4

This last one is confusing, because you're using the symbology that, say, a carpenter would use, but carpenters would probably never need 4 spatial dimensions.

1 sq ft = 1 ft^2



Originally Posted By: paul

then compare the answers. I get

2ft^2 * 2ft^2 = 4ft^2
and
2ft * 2ft = 4 ft
and
2 sq ft * 2 sq ft = 4 sq ft


Every "answer" you wrote is wrong!

Originally Posted By: paul

notice in all 3 above I used the same units in my
answer because thats the way its done.
its the way that makes sense.

The only thing I notice is that you haven't got the least little clue about what you're talking about. You literally have a comic book understanding of math.
and all 3 above are correct.


Originally Posted By: paul

once you do the equations you will clearly see your error or the error of those who taught you or the way you learned it.

hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaha

Take a math class or keep spewing stupid crap.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/04/11 11:47 PM


Go to the following website:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/

In the search bar, type your three expressions.
See what the results are.

Stephen Wolfram is a mathematical physicist and author of the popular software Mathematica that many scientists use. http://www.stephenwolfram.com/about-sw/

You think maybe kallog got to him?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 12:16 AM

your right , Im sorry I was so wrong...

4 ft^4 is only 256 square feet
so according to you and that web site
2ft^2 * 2ft^2 = 256 ft^4

WOW

LOL LOL LOL

its obvious that your trickery is not even close to an answer that is even slightly reasonable , just like your math is not even slightly reasonable.

can anyone say idiot?

I can...

guess what genius 4^4 = 256

4^1 = 4
4^2 = 16
4^3 = 64
4^4 = 256


now enter in the sqr of 4 * itself

sqr (4) * sqr(4) = 4



Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 12:24 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
your right , Im sorry I was so wrong...

4 ft^4 is only 256 ft^4

The program doesn't give that result.
Did you cut-n-paste your expressions into the web page?
What were the answers?


Originally Posted By: paul

sqr (4) * sqr(4) = 4

Correct.

The functional notation sqr() is not standard and is therefore ambiguous. Sometimes it means square root and some times it means square. However, Wolfram uses it to mean square root ... and will give the answer you expect.

Do you think *I* programmed Wolfram Alpha?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 12:27 AM

Quote:
The program doesn't give that result.


click on where it says result 4ft^4

it then shows you 256 ft^4

LOL

now poke 256 ft^4 in and see what that means because
he still shows it squared.

LOL

it has now become

4.29510^9 ft^4 (feet to the fourth)

idiots breed idiots I suppose.



Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 12:34 AM

Quote:
Do you think *I* programmed Wolfram Alpha?


no , I dont.

I think you just dont want to admit that *YOUR* wrong.

LOL
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 12:37 AM

Quote:
Did you cut-n-paste your expressions into the web page?
What were the answers?


I didnt cut-n-paste I typed them in.
2 ft^2 * 2 ft^2 =

I even tried 2 ft squared * 2 ft squared =

and got the same 4 ft^4 result below !!!


Quote:
4 ft^4 (feet to the fourth)


4 anythings ^4 = 256 anythings

also it doesnt equal 256 anythings ^4

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 12:43 AM

Quote:
Mathematica that many scientists use.


Im not sure if he uses the same brilliance in his program as he uses in his web site but to be on the safe - logical - side
Im going to plan all of my trips in the future to avoid any tall buildings and bridges and things that could break if a scientist or engineer was involved in its design , thanks for the tip.

Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 12:49 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
Did you cut-n-paste your expressions into the web page?
What were the answers?


I didnt cut-n-paste I typed them in.
2 ft^2 * 2 ft^2 =

I even tried 2 ft squared * 2 ft squared =

and got the same 4 ft^4 result below !!!


Quote:
4 ft^4 (feet to the fourth)


4 anythings ^4 = 256 anythings

also it doesnt equal 256 anythings ^4




Well. At least you did it. This is the same answer that ANY scientist, engineer, or mathematician on the planet would give you. The problem with doing things your way is this -
you end up with things being equal that can't possibly actually BE equal AND for sufficiently complex problems you will get inconsistencies.

The advantage of using the standard way is that it is ENTIRELY consistent.

Originally Posted By: paul

4 anythings ^4 = 256 anythings

No. The fourth power only applies to the "anythings," not the first 4.

(4 anythings) ^4 = 256 anythings^4

4 anythings^4 = 4 (anythings^4)
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 12:49 AM

Quote:
The functional notation sqr() is not standard and is therefore ambiguous. Sometimes it means square root and some times it means square. However, Wolfram uses it to mean square root ... and will give the answer you expect.


I was wondering if he only programmed it to use a squared number such as 4 which has a sqr of 2 to perform multiplication.

thats why I entered sqr4 * sqr4

and thats the only time I got a correct answer.

4 not 4^2
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 12:54 AM

Quote:
Sometimes it means square root and some times it means square.


I've never heard that one before.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 12:58 AM

I thought about this , its not him that is at fault here.

its teachers and books that failed to properly teach students the way to write equations.

and to provide proper notation methods and symbols.

ie ... theres no symbol for square !!

if he would have been taught properly his program would reflect it.

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 01:05 AM



above I posted the link to the interpretation of
4ft^4

are you saying that 256 ft^4 is the correct answer?

to

2ft^2 * 2ft^2 =

if so then why stop at 4

lets make math even more stupider than it is becomming so that even more time is wasted teaching crap like this to students as they are trying their best to learn math.

why not make it 4 ft^400000

instead of making it 4ft^2 which is what the freakin correct answer would be.

ie...4 ft squared

wouldnt that be much more difficult to understand thereby ensuring that we will need more and more teachers to fill the void that this crap would create...

also they would need supercomputers to run the calculations on..

ah...it would be good for the economy wouldnt it , but not our economy.



Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 01:26 AM

Originally Posted By: paul


above I posted the link to the interpretation of
4ft^4


Actually, that link is to the expression: (4 ft)^4
which is different from: 4 ft^4

When you use the words: "4 feet to the fourth"
it's ambiguous - there are two possible meanings. It picked one of them and it happened to be the first one instead of the second one.

Originally Posted By: paul

are you saying that 256 ft^4 is the correct answer?
to
2ft^2 * 2ft^2 =



No. If you cut and paste "2ft^2 * 2ft^2" it gives the same result I gave which is 4ft^4.

You wrote: if so then why stop at 4
Why stop "what" at 4?

Originally Posted By: paul

lets make math even more stupider than it is becomming so that even more time is wasted teaching crap like this to students as they are trying their best to learn math.

It's not stupid just because you don't understand the reason for it. Kallog mentioned "dimensional analysis" a while back. That's a basic science concept. You can't get answers that make any sense at all in the real world if you don't keep the dimensions on both sides of the equation the same.


Originally Posted By: paul

why not make it 4 ft^400000



I have no idea how you conclude this. This stuff would be so much easier if you tried to understand it BEFORE you criticize it.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 01:29 AM

Quote:
Actually, that link is to the expression: (4 ft)^4
which is different from: 4 ft^4


I guess his web site links must be incorrect then because I clicked on his link then pasted the address.

Quote:
If you cut and paste "2ft^2 * 2ft^2" it gives the same result I gave which is 4ft^4.


and both your result is crap and his result is crap.

because 4ft^4 = 256 ft

dimension or not the answer 4ft^4 is wrong.

the correct answer is 4ft^2 which is 16 feet

you idiots can think of it otherwise if you choose but
please dont build anything that could injure normal people.

I believe this concludes my discussion with you.

but you have fun with all the different ways you have found to come up with wrong answers.

I know you will probably reply to this , but I am through replying to your replies.

not because I think your right , because I know your wrong.


Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 01:51 AM

Originally Posted By: paul

the correct answer is 4ft^2 which is 16 feet

you idiots can think of it otherwise if you choose but
please dont build anything that could injure normal people.


The problem is that if you ignored that (as in calculated higher moments) it is virtually certain that your calculation would bring the bridge down.

You can check this on google's calculator, too, but it keeps converting to meters when you type in feet. But you can cut n paste: 2m^2 * 2m^2 and you get 4m^4. (Same math ... just using meters instead of feet.)
http://www.google.com/intl/en/help/features.html#calculator

So you think google's in on the conspiracy?

Works the same way with the calculator at: http://web2.0calc.com/

Just cut n paste 2m^2 * 2m^2 to get 4m^4.

Are they in on it too?

EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST, MATHEMATICIAN, AND ENGINEER ON THE ENTIRE PLANET DOES MATH THIS WAY ... including the ones you cite. You think we're all idiots ... and you, the guy who knows the absolute least and won't even make the effort to understand it are the only one who gets it?
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 02:07 AM

Actually ... I don't know if they use higher order moments in building bridges (maybe they do ... I don't know). I retract that. The actual point is sufficient without exaggeration.

If you aren't keeping your dimensions consistent on both sides of an equation then none of your equalities are actual equalities. It's one of the first checks that every first year engineering student learns.

In this case, it's mostly a matter of convention. (But the "logic" is that the math has to be consistent ... which it won't be in your method.)
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 03:19 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
You can already say 3*3=3^2

and I can say 2ft * 2ft = 2ft^2 (two foot squared)


How many times have I told you why this is wrong?

The ^2 symbol applies to what's immediately before it.

That's how it's defined.

It's not logic, it's just an arbitrary convention of how math symbols are written. If you don't follow the convention then don't use the same symbols, because nobody will understand you.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 03:22 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
2anythings*2anythings = 4anythings


2x * 2x = 4x?

Are you sure?
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 03:29 AM

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
You can check this on google's calculator, too,


Sorry, Google's calculator is contaminated by an employee who learnt the wrong way from a book. You can see for yourself that it uses units of m^2/s^2 for the "speed of light squared". A speed should be m/s of course!!! This isn't Google's fault, just one of its workers.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 02:09 PM

Quote:
Are you sure?


I suppose I should rephrase that.

2 anythings * 2 anything = 4 anythings

as long as the anything are the same units.

the answer would also be delivered in anything units.


Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 02:17 PM

Quote:
The ^2 symbol applies to what's immediately before it.


that makes sense.

so would you agree that

2bananas * 2bananas = 4bananas^2 ( Four Bananas Squared )

is wrong.


the problem in the above is that he used a result
that requires squaring.

4 bananas squared = 16 bananas

if he was going to use a number that requires squaring he should have used numbers that require squaring

such as 2(squared)ft * 2(squared)ft = 4(squared)ft which is equal to 16(square)ft
4*4=16
2^2 = 4
4^4 = 16


bananas = bananas anyway you just keep the units

so when he wrote

2bananas * 2bananas = 4bananas^2 ( Four Bananas Squared )
his equation was wrong if he was going to deliver a result using (bananas squared)

so if anything the correct answer should be 4 sq bananas if bananas were a unit of measurement.

Quote:
The ^2 symbol applies to what's immediately before it.


and since theres no symbol for square.

the above doesnt even work.

because
4^2ft = 16 ft
and
4ft^2 = 16 ft


I look at it and I see that the 4 needs to be squared.
I have been brainwashed to believe that the ^ symbol means
that you multiply the number directly before it by itself
times the number directly after the ^ even if there are units between the ^ and the number before it.

we need a symbol for (Square) or our answers will be wrong.

we cant use ^2 to represent both square and squared

or we just write it out in words as in the above.

ie..

2bananas * 2bananas = 4 Bananas

2sq bananas * 2sq bananas = 4 sq bananas

2 bananas squared * 2 bananas squared = 4 bananas squared

Quote:
(But the "logic" is that the math has to be consistent ... which it won't be in your method.)


which is not as far off as 256 bananas^4 which is equal to
1,099,511,627,776 bananas

I dont know about the many disturbing ways that people who need to apply math during the course of their daily routine or their job use to determine a correct answer using some type of calculation or program that performs calculations for them because they didnt bother to learn how to perform calculations in school the proper way as they should have.

but I do know that materials have stress limits and if you add in a 20% over stress limit and your structure becomes over stressed by 21% then your structure can fail.

and when calculating the weight of concrete that is to be poured on each floor using crap to do your calculations for you will most likely cause the building to fall under the stress of itself.

I personaly would prefer to do my own calculations or at least program my own calculator.

that wolfram and google should not be used by engineers who build buildings they should learn math.

or learn how to program their own programs to do the correct math for them.

and as far as algebra is concerned ,I have taken algebra thats why I never use it.

I never have found it to be usefull at any point in my life.

I truly believe it is a waste of brain space and valuable student time.

often I think of it as filler in a book that needs filler
to complete a certain number of pages that the editor requires.

it serves absolutely no other purpose than filler.

If I had a chance to vote against algebra being taught in our schools , I would.

this would free up valuable student time and then students could be taught things that they could actually use vs algebra.

Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 02:39 PM

In reality, one would seldom multiply bananas by bananas. I brought that up to help you understand the point. If you want to multiply a quantity of something - you multiply by a pure number, not by a number of items.

You have to consider
1) what each term means (what does multiplication *mean*)? and
2) what are the applicable rules (properties that apply)


Paul wrote, regarding bananas^2: "is wrong."

No. It's not wrong. You think it's wrong, because you haven't made any effort to understand it. Have you EVER driven a car? Have you EVER taken a plane or a train or a ship? Anyone who built any of those devices use the same math - and always have.


Paul: 4*4=16
Correct ... however, you continue ...

Paul: ... of course = 4(units)^2 = 4bananas^2
nope. 4*4 <> 4(units)^2


Paul: and 4(units)^2 = 16 (units)
again. nope.

Paul, What harm is there in learning the rules, BEFORE you write them off? They exist for a reason. Humanity has thought about this for thousands of years. Learn them. Practice them. It's NOT beyond your intelligence; but it IS currently beyond your ego and beyond your patience.

If you learn the rules and practice them, you begin to understand HOW it all fits together and WHY the rules are what they are. You get a remarkable simplicity - and more than that, you get a beautiful consistency.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 02:44 PM

I understand that you don't agree with any of this.

Do you at least accept that the entire technical world agrees with what kallog and I have said - or do you think we're just making stuff up? (If someone strongly disagreed about basic math with the creator of Mathematica, you would think it would be big news.)
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 03:49 PM

I could be discussing this with TFF but its like algebra
its a total waste of time and effort.
having a discussion with TFF serves no usefull purpose.
I once wrote to him and said.

Quote:
I believe this concludes my discussion with you.


and what I said was what I meant.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 04:34 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
I could be discussing this with TFF but its like algebra
its a total waste of time and effort.
having a discussion with TFF serves no usefull purpose.
I once wrote to him and said.

Quote:
I believe this concludes my discussion with you.


and what I said was what I meant.



Did actually think algebra itself is a total waste of time and effort?

Do you accept at least that I'm using the same math that every other technical person on the planet is using?

Do you understand that you're not just disagreeing with kallog and me? That you are actually disagreeing with EVERY scientist, mathematician, and engineer on the planet?

That is, do you understand that the scientists and mathematicians that you applaud use math the same way that kallog and I do?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 04:55 PM

somewhere I heard that there was another website that you can use to perform calculations at.

it is

http://web2.0calc.com/

I entered (2) then pressed the (x)2 button then pressed the (multiply) button
then entered (2) and pressed the (x2) button then pressed the (equals) button.

here is the order of buttons I pressed

2
x2
x
2
x2
=

this calculator performs correct math

it returns 16

which is the correct number that you get when you multiply
2^2 * 2^2 = 16

because 2^2 = 4

so 4*4=16

I looked in the help section to see if the calculator would perform calculations that included ft I couldnt find ft in the help section so I tried the following equations.
and below are the sickening results.

4ft^4*4ft^4=0.00119189962736[m^8]

however when I didnt use units it delivers correct answers

2*2=4
and
2^2*2^2=16

so It looks as if the calculator can do simple math as long as you dont enter units.

you should already know what the units are anyway.

and units shouldnt be multiplied in the first place
the program is programed to deliver a correct answer
only when a correct equation is entered into it.

to test this I typed in

2 bananas * 2 bananas =

and it couldnt supply a result

then I typed in

2*2=

and it responded with

2*2=4

which is correct

I noticed that it didnt say

2*2=4^2

because it would have given a wrong result if it had and
it hasnt taken algebra because it cant so it still has enough brains to figure that simple equation out and deliver a correct result.

unlike many people today who think they can , but in reality only issue garbage out when they do calculations.


Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 05:16 PM

I mentioned that site in a previous email. It may not have a symbol for "ft", but you can just type in the ft. IIRC, the problem is that it will automatically convert to meters which will confuse matters.

Cut n paste the following into it: 2m^2 * 2m^2

The "m" means meters. It returns the correct result.

The cut n paste the following: (2m)^2 * (2m)^2

Should be a different answer. The CONVENTION is that the square only applies to the next nearest thing to the left - no matter what that thing (variable, constant, unit, function) UNLESS the order is altered by parentheses.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 05:20 PM

I'm not asking you to believe anything.

I'm not asking you to accept anything that doesn't make any sense to you.

I'm not even asking you to admit you're wrong - or even that you MIGHT BE wrong.

I'm asking you for simple, yes/no answers to these questions.

A) Do you actually think algebra itself is a total waste of time and effort?

B) Do you accept at least that I'm using the same math that every other technical person on the planet is using?

C) Do you understand that you're not just disagreeing with kallog and me - that you are actually disagreeing with EVERY scientist, mathematician, and engineer on the planet?

D) That is, do you understand that even the scientists and mathematicians that you applaud use math the same way that kallog and I do?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 05:39 PM

someone requested that I type in
2m^2*2m^2

so I did and the result was
4m^4

what a ridiculous result!!

2 meters squared = 4 square meters
if I multiply 4 sq meters * 4 sq meters my result that
I get using logical calculations equals 16 sq meters.

4*4=16

but logic might not be in play anymore
when simple multiplication is required.

I expect to see more and more structural failure in the near future.


because idiots seem to be overtaking more than just politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_structural_failures_and_collapses

from the looks of it , Im right

we build less and less structures and more fall down.

IDIOTS

it might be that people who are forced to take subjects like algebra in order to take other subjects that are beneficial to their future actually end up thinking that algebra actually has something to do with reality.

so they apply the crap results of the example above when designing structures and of course the structures fall down.

they needed 16 square meters of steel plate but they only used 4m^4

whatever that is.

what does 4m^4 mean in the real world?
and explain how you determined what it means.
quantify it.

what does the stupid 4m^4 represent?

Quote:
However, in algebra the variables stand for a number that gets multiplied by the number attached to it (no signs between letters and numbers means multiply).


Quote:
2bananas * 2bananas = 4bananas^2 ( Four Bananas Squared )


(2*bananas)*(2*bananas)=4bananas^2

(no signs between letters and numbers means multiply)
so your answer is wrong by definition

according to the above by definition in algebra it would be

(2*bananas)*(2*bananas) = 4*bananas^2( Four Times Bananas Squared )

so in essence the above has no value at all!!
it was a waste of time talking about algebra.

Quote:
in algebra the variables stand for a number that gets multiplied by the number attached to it


because bananas is not a number that has a value
it must be a variable
and because bananas has no value.
and 2 is attached to bananas so 2*bananas = 0
and because no information was given for the
ananas variables the ananas variable has no value either.

therefore

(2*b*ananas)*(2*b*ananas) = 4*b*ananas^2( Four Times B Times ananas Squared )

(2*0*0)*(2*0*0) = 0

there is no reason to square your result so the equation becomes

(2*b*ananas)*(2*b*ananas) = 4*b*ananas( Four Times b Times ananas )
the equation is now

(0)*(0)= 0

because 2*0=0
and 2*0*0 = 0
and 4*0*0 = 0
so (0)*(0)= 0

which is ridiculous by definition.
or basically its just ridiculous definition or not.

most people who have even the least amount of cognitive powers dont need such stupid crap as the above to make a large portion of their day seem as if a day isnt really worth much .

especially when that large portion of their years of studying for a worthwhile career could have allowed them to study courses that actually have value.


Quote:
A) Do you actually think algebra itself is a total waste of time and effort?


YES I DO!!!
Absolutely


Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 06:25 PM


There have been structural failures. There's no evidence that these were caused by using standard algebra. If standard algebra were the cause, you would expect a lot more failures than that, because it is used hundreds of times a day by the engineers who are making new products, building bridges, cars, etc. We should expect THOUSANDS of failures every day from all over the world.

Without even hinting that you might be wrong, can you please answer the following questions clearly with a "yes" or "no"?

A) Do you actually think algebra itself is a total waste of time and effort?

B) Do you accept at least that I'm using the same math that every other technical person on the planet is using?

C) Do you understand that you're not just disagreeing with kallog and me - that you are actually disagreeing with EVERY scientist, mathematician, and engineer on the planet?

D) That is, do you understand that even the scientists and mathematicians that you applaud use math the same way that kallog and I do?

Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 11:22 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
Are you sure?

I suppose I should rephrase that.
2 anythings * 2 anything = 4 anythings
as long as the anything are the same units.
the answer would also be delivered in anything units.


Only with units?
2x * 2x <> 4x
2m * 2m = 4m
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/05/11 11:31 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
soaccording to the above by definition in algebra it would be

(2*bananas)*(2*bananas) = 4*bananas^2( Four Times Bananas Squared )


YES!

Quote:

so in essence the above has no value at all!!


Huh? It's a perfectly useful answer, just like
3m * 4m = 12m^2 (12 square meters)
which tells us the area of a 2m*4m rectangle.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/06/11 12:57 AM

Quote:
3m * 4m = 12m^2 (12 square meters)
which tells us the area of a 3m*4m rectangle.


YES

EXACTLY

12m^2 (12 square meters)

not

12m^2 (12 meters squared)

(four bananas squared)

a simple typo that turned into a long argument that could
have been solved simply by admitting his typo.








Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/06/11 01:57 AM

It's not a typo. They mean the same thing.

1 meter^2 = 1 meter squared = 1 square meter

Often (not always) engineers will refer to meter-squared.
Usually (not always) lay people refer to square meters.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/06/11 11:16 AM

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
1 meter^2 = 1 meter squared = 1 square meter


Hmm I thought I replied before but it seems to have vanished.

We can at least agree on something:

3m * 4m = 12 square meters
3ft * 4ft = 12 sq ft


But then we still can't solve the problem which kicked this off:

80N * 50s = 4000N ??

Paul's way doesn't tell us how to decide what units the answer should have. So we're helpless when faced with:

80 bananas * 50 apples = 4000 bananas ??

80 m/s/s * 50 s = 4000 m/s/s ??

80 kg.m/s/s * 50 s = 4000 kg.m/s/s ??
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/06/11 01:56 PM

Originally Posted By: kallog

80N * 50s = 4000N ??



Paul says: 80N * 50s = 4000N

As you have pointed out previously, this equality can't be an equality, because it has different units on each side. That is, it fails the test of dimensional analysis.

No amount of feet, nor any amount of pounds can equal 10 seconds. On the left we have some # of N times some # of s, but on the right we only have some number of N. This is the problem with Paul's system: the equal sign doesn't actually mean "equal" the way he's using it.

Once again, he disagrees with every technical person on the planet. We cut-n-paste "80N * 50s" into http://www.wolframalpha.com/ and the result comes up: 4000 N s (newton seconds)

Wolfram says you're right. Every other scientist, engineer, and mathematician on the planet says you're right.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/06/11 02:50 PM

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
As you have pointed out previously, this equality can't be an equality, because it has different units on each side. That is, it fails the test
...
Wolfram says you're right. Every other scientist, engineer, and mathematician on the planet says you're right.


Yea trouble is those arguments are too easy to persuade Paul! And in fact they don't necessarily apply if he has a consistent system. Our way of using units happens to be all nice and beautiful and works perfectly, but that doesn't mean some other system (Paul's) won't work.

I just don't quite understand the rules. If they were clearer then it would be easy to look for internal inconsistencies to disprove it without invoking "the way everybody else does it". The "equals sign means equal" doesn't really work unless you already assume a meaning for "Ns" It doesn't mean "newtons times seconds" in Paul's system because you're don't multiply units there.

There are other systems in common use. For example this formula for hull speed of a boat:

velocity in knots=1.35 x sqrt(waterline length)

That clearly fails dimensional analysis, but it will still be correct using a different convention.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/06/11 03:40 PM

I don't have an issue with Paul disagreeing - only with his being disagreeable - insisting that everyone else is an idiot.

The thing is he hasn't learned the "correct" way sufficiently to criticize it.

He also hasn't thought through the implications of what he is saying; namely, that even the scientists whose work he finds acceptable use the same math that everyone else uses.

If equal doesn't mean "equal" then you eventually end up with inconsistencies.

I'm not familiar with the formula you give, but it can easily be made dimensionally consistent by putting the correct units as part of the constant. Technically, the formula is incorrect - even if it works.

For example, there are people who will say that you can multiply the number of feet by 12 to give you inches. This also works, but is incorrect. It doesn't matter in the simplest cases, but losing the units on more complicated problems is a recipe for disaster.

1) Using his method, we lose one of the most basic checks - dimensional consistency.

2) Using his method, we are at a fundamental inconsistency:
1m * 1m = 1m^2, BUT
m^2 * m^2 <> m^4

3) Using his method, we lose the ability to communicate with the rest of the technical people.

4) If the standard way of addressing this were as far off as Paul insists, then we should literally be having 1000s of colossal engineering failures every day.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/06/11 04:43 PM

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_metre

Quote:
A square metre is not the same as a meter square, an area 2 metres wide by 5 metres long would be 10 square metres, in contrast 10 metres squared means an area 10 metres by 10 metres. So 10 metres squared = 100 Square meteres.



Quote:
(four bananas squared)


is 4 * 4 = 16

believe it or not.

I knew it wasnt a typo , I was just giving you a face out.
that you didnt take.

Quote:
I don't have an issue with Paul disagreeing - only with his being disagreeable - insisting that everyone else is an idiot.


you were wrong and you are also stupid enough to not admit it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

even though we have tried to explain to you the difference between square and squared you insist that square and squared have the same meaning , therefore my usage of the term idiot.






Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/06/11 05:00 PM

Quote:
But then we still can't solve the problem which kicked this off:

80N * 50s = 4000N ??


I suppose I should have used

4000N/50 seconds


I just thought that it was clear because the 80N was being applied for 50 seconds.

because the time is inside the Newton already !!!

1N = 1kg * 1m/s^2

so if I apply a force of 1N to a 1kg mass for 50 seconds
the mass will accelerate at a rate of 1m/s/s for 50 seconds
the total amount of force that was applied to the 1kg mass was 1N times 50 seconds which equals 50N

1N * 50 seconds = 50N

like if I use 1000 watts * 50 hours = 50,000 watts or 50kwh.

you wouldnt write the above like

1000 watts * 50 hours = 50,000 watts / 50 hours !!!

and TFF were not doing or trying to do algebra so dont even
attempt to to inject that stupid crap anymore , I will not even consider
that the information is comming from a reliable source.









Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/06/11 05:27 PM

The words are ambiguous. The notation is not.

Wiki is not the most reliable source, however, it does give good links usually - and that's true in this case. Their reference is Dr. Math and I find him usually dependable.

Wolfram gives a result I expect:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10+meters+squared

However, unlike you I

1) can admit that I might possibly be wrong, and
2) am not afraid to consult someone who knows more than I do,

so I will send an email to Dr. Weisstein at Mathworld to ask for clarification.

If there is an inconsistency here, it's only in the words which are ambiguous and not in the notation.

---
Here's the message I just sent to Mathworld.

Inconsistency.

According to http://mathforum.org/dr.math/
10 meter squared <> 10 square meters

However, Wolfram Alpha provides a different result:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10+meters+squared

Could this be the result of an inconsistency between British and American usage?

It seems clear that using standard notation eliminates the inconsistency: 2m * 2m = 4m^2 (regardless of whether one calls it four meters squared or 4 square meters)
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/06/11 05:30 PM



you're not being consistent.

Paul writes:

like if I use 1000 watts * 50 hours = 50,000 watts or 50kwh.


False. 1000 watts * 50 hours <> 50,000 watts

Correct. 1000 watts * 50 hours = 50kwh

What does kwh stand for?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/06/11 05:45 PM

get out of this discussion , your doing nothing but trying to
stall any progress that might be accomplished if you were not in it.

I have already told you that I am not using algebra and if you dont leave this discussion I will see if the moderators can do anything about it.

if you want to discuss algebra and all of the wrong ways that normal people use math then start up a discussion to discuss algebra.

but get out of this discussion with your discussion of algebra.

this thread is not about algebra.

I made you a place to discuss algebra in the not quite science forum , please refrain from any further algebra
jargon in this thread.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=40685#Post40685



Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/06/11 05:59 PM

Discussion of algebra does not go in NQS.

Algebra belongs in any scientific discussion where it is applicable - and this is certainly among them. Asserting that it is not applicable does not make it inapplicable. You can ask the moderators anything you want.

I asked you what Kwh means. What does it mean? You used the term. Tell us what it means.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/06/11 06:07 PM

What does "kwh" mean?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/06/11 06:20 PM

I've asked Kate if theres a way that you can be prevented from posting your constant insistence on me using your methods of calculating math problems.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/06/11 06:22 PM

Very good. I eagerly await her response.

In the meantime, can you tell us what "kwh" means?
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/06/11 06:24 PM

I'm not asking you to use "my" method. I'm asking you what "kwh" means.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/06/11 06:46 PM

I posted a link to kwh in the NQS forum

titled

ALGEBRA a discussion about ALGEBRA
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/06/11 06:53 PM

Quote:
I'm not asking you to use "my" method.


right , its more like insisting

or demanding.

I still have a choice to use what I find to be proper math at least until the republicans have infiltrated the education system and have found a way to brainwash me into believing that your way of finding a solution to math problems in the real world is the proper method to use.

hopefully my proper brainwashing will be sufficient to withstand any infiltration of your way of performing math calculations.

however in order for republicans to remain in control of the government they must remove intelligence from most or a larger percentage of u.s. citizens than the percentage of inteligent u.s. citizens.

so they may be preparing methods to accomplish this goal as we speak.

you wouldnt know that you had already been prepared because the preparation removes your ability to detect its influences on you.

the fact that you teach children could very well mean that you were or are a prime target for the dumming of u.s. citizens so that republicans can remain in power.





Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/06/11 07:15 PM

What does 'kwh' MEAN?
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/07/11 01:35 AM

Paul, have you had a chance to check google for 'kwh' yet?
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/07/11 04:16 AM

Hi Paul, what do you think about these? I'm trying to work out how to apply your system to any kind of operations.

80 bananas * 50 apples = 4000 bananas ??

80 m/s/s * 50 s = 4000 m/s/s ??

80 kg.m/s/s * 50 s = 4000 kg.m/s/s ??


Also, comparing what kwh means to what you wrote it as equivalent to would be enlightening!
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/07/11 05:37 PM

Quote:
80 kg.m/s/s * 50 s = 4000 kg.m/s/s ??


the same as saying

80N * 50 seconds = 4000N

1 N = 1 kgm/s2

you do realize that time is part of a newton dont you?

1 newton unit of force = 1kg per meter per second per second

so

2 newton units of force = 2 kg meters per second^2

or

2 newton units of force = 1 kg meters per 2 seconds^2

so

4000N = 80 kg meters per 50 seconds^2

which is

4000N = 80N * 50 seconds
or
80N * 50 seconds = 4000N






Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/07/11 06:16 PM

Originally Posted By: paul

80N * 50 seconds = 4000N


What does 80N * 50 hours = ?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/07/11 07:17 PM

Quote:
What does 80N * 50 hours = ?


alot!!!
first you find the number of seconds in 50 hours.

60 seconds * 60 minutes * 50 hours = 180,000 seconds

80N * 180000 seconds = 14400000N

that would be the total force applied if you applied 80N each second over a time period of 50 hours

because each second you apply 80N for 1 second
you add 80N to the total force applied.

and total force is additive.






Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/07/11 07:44 PM


In standard notation:

80N * 50 hours = 4000 N*hrs

80N * 50s = 4000 Ns

Either is acceptable, but one could convert between them easily enough.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/07/11 07:58 PM

Quote:
80N * 50 hours = 4000 N*hrs

Quote:
80N * 50s = 4000 Ns


N*h would be newtons per hours !!
you would then have 4000N * 50 hours !!!

Ns would be newtons per second !!
you would then have 4000N * 1 seconds !!!

which would be correct if you used 4000N in 1 second
but you didnt you used the 4000N in 50 seconds


time is in a newton already

if I write that 1 newton is the force required to accelerate a 1kg mass to a acceleration rate of 1m/s/s
I already know that it will accelerate the 1 kg mass to an acceleration rate of 1m/s/s in 1 second because time is already there in the newton.

a newton unit of force is a combination of time , mass , distance , acceleration all whipped up into a single unit...


Quote:
Either is acceptable, but one could convert between them easily enough.


Neither is acceptable.

otherwise the description of 1 newton would be

1Ns is the amount of force applied to a mass of 1kg to accelerate the 1kg mass to an acceleration rate of 1m/s/s





Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/07/11 08:19 PM


Ns means Newton-seconds which is "newtons times seconds"
because Ns is shorthand for N*s (the minus sign is actually a dash which is confusing, so they usually just write Ns)

Nhr means Newton-hours which is "newtons times hours."
Nhr is shorthand for N*hr

Newtons per seconds would be written N/s

Newtons per hour would be N/hr

Newton second = Ns

Newtons per second = N/s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton-second
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/07/11 08:27 PM

Quote:
Ns means Newton-seconds which is "newtons times seconds"


what would 4000Ns be if you know the seconds are 50 seconds?

newtons * seconds !!!
4000N * 50 seconds ?

4000N only describes the total force.

you can apply it any way you want

but 4000Ns means what?

I think your confused in the same way you are with
square feet and feet squared


has the doctor given you a diagnosis yet?

Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/07/11 08:31 PM


4000 Ns means "Four thousand Newton seconds"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton-second
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/07/11 08:33 PM

Quote:
4000 Ns means "Four thousand Newton seconds"


so thats applying a force of 4000N for 1 second.

4000Ns * 1 second = 4000Ns impulse

and

4000N * 1 second = 4000N



Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/07/11 08:45 PM


4000Ns is 4000Ns

it can be either impulse or momentum since they are both in the same units. (in the same way that ft can mean both length or altitude)

4000Ns * 1 second = 4000Ns^2 which is not impulse
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/07/11 08:46 PM

OK

so N*seconds = N

Quote:
4000N * 1 second = 4000N


80N * 50 seconds = 4000N

Quote:
4000Ns * 1 second = 4000Ns^2 which is not impulse


Quote:
the force that accelerated each of the 100 kg masses
was +80N x 1000 meters = +4000N


Quote:
No. That quantity is 80,000Nm. Nm is not force. Actually it's energy.


Quote:
LOL

your right , I did mess that up.

it is +80N applied for 50 seconds.

+80N each second for 50 seconds over a distance of 1000 meters

+80N x 50 seconds = +4000N


Quote:
4000Ns, not 4000N. This is the impulse applied to the pipe, not the force. It's also the momentum added to it.


Quote:
OK

so N*seconds = N


Quote:
+80N x 50 seconds = +4000N


what comes around goes around!

I have my second opinion now.

if a force of 4000N is applied for 1 second
you would have applied a total force of
4000N for that 1 second.

4000N * 1 second = 4000N

the total force doesnt change just because you apply it.

but you can apply the total force over several seconds

2000N * 2 seconds = 4000N

80N * 50 seconds = 4000N

1N * 4000 seconds = 4000N

4000N is the total amount of force required to accelerate a 100kg mass
to an acceleration rate of .8 m/s/s
over a distance of 1000 meters
in 50 seconds

the 100kg mass will then have a velocity of 40 m/s
its momentum is
100kg * 40m/s = 4000Ns

1N is the total amount of force required to accelerate a 1kg mass
to an acceleration rate of 1 m/s/s
over a distance of .5 meters
in 1 second

the 1kg mass will then have a velocity of 1 m/s
its momentum is
1kg * 1m/s = 1Ns


Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/08/11 04:21 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
4000N is the total amount of force required to accelerate a 100kg mass
to an acceleration rate of .8 m/s/s
over a distance of 1000 meters
in 50 seconds


You understand that a constant force causes a constant acceleration, right?

As soon as you apply 80N to the 100kg mass, it will immediately be accelerating at 0.8m/s/s. It won't increase to 0.9m/s/s if you wait longer. Of course in real life you can't apply a force instantly, but you can do it pretty suddenly and get 0.8m/s/s almost immediately.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/08/11 04:31 AM

Quote:
OK

so N*seconds = N



Are you quoting me? Why didn't you look at the context to see if I was talking about your system or mine?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/08/11 02:43 PM

Quote:
You understand that a constant force causes a constant acceleration, right?

As soon as you apply 80N to the 100kg mass, it will immediately be accelerating at 0.8m/s/s.


Yes , I realize that because that is exactly what it says.

1N is the force required to accelerate a 1kg mass to 1m/s/s
in 1 second.

Quote:
it will immediately be accelerating at 0.8m/s/s.


its not immediately or instant , thats why they use 1 second as the time period required for the mass to reach the acceleration rate of 1 m/s/s !!
if it was an instant acceleration then a 1kg mass could be moved a distance of 1 meter in 1 second using a force of 1N

but a 1kg mass will only move a distance of .5 meters in 1 second using a force of 1N.

1N is the force required to accelerate a 1kg mass to 1m/s/s
in 1 second.


Quote:
It won't increase to 0.9m/s/s if you wait longer.


exactly

thats why it says

1N is the force required to accelerate a 1kg mass to 1m/s/s
in 1 second.

an acceleration rate will only change if more or less force is applied to an object.

and a constant force of 1N will constantly accelerate a 1kg mass at a rate of 1m/s/s

thats why it says

1N is the force required to accelerate a 1kg mass to 1m/s/s
in 1 second.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/08/11 02:58 PM

Quote:

OK

so N*seconds = N

Are you quoting me?


nope , just stating a fact.

so N*seconds = N because seconds are built into the units of force Newtons N

else

f/s^2 = ma


Quote:
80N is the force required to accelerate a 100kg mass to .8m/s/s
in 1 second.


80N * 1 second = 80N

Quote:
4000N is the force required to accelerate a 100kg mass to a velocity of 40 m/s in 50 seconds


80N * 50 seconds = 4000N

for each 100kg mass that is accelerated at an acceleration rate of .8m/s/s for a time period of 50 seconds

the total force that is applied / consumed / expended is 4000N

because there is already 1 second^2 in each newton.

so the force applied wouldnt be written as
4000Ns it would be written as 4000N thats why they put the 1 second^2 in the definition of a newton.

1 N = 1 kgm/s2

constant force means you constantly apply the force , its not a 1 time force applied for 1 second.

so you multiply the force applied times the time the force is applied.

kg = sick
meter = blush
second= mad

1 newton = 1 sick blush / mad per mad

if I apply a push of 1 sick over a distance of 1 blush in 1 mad per mad

I have applied 1kg-m/s^2 force for a distance of 1 meter for a time of 1 second per second

1kg-m/s^2 = 1N

if I apply a push of 80 sick over a distance of 1 blush in 1 mad per mad

I have applied 80kg-m/s^2 force for a distance of 1 meter for a time of 1 second per second

80kg-m/s^2 = 80N

if I apply a push of 4000 sick over a distance of 1 blush in 1 mad per mad

I have applied 4000kg-m/s^2 force for a distance of 1 meter for a time of 1 second per second

4000kg-m/s^2 = 4000N


if I apply a push of 80 sick over a distance of 1000 blush in 50mad per 50mad

I have applied 4000kg-1000 meters/50 seconds per 50 seconds force for a distance of 1000 meters for a time of 50 seconds per 50 seconds

1kg-1m/1s^2 = 1N
so
4000kg-1000m/50s^2 = 4000N

dick = laugh
jane = cry
force units = 80kg-m/s^2 = 80N = whistle

dick can push jane with a force of 80N

jane has a mass of 100kg

laugh dick can accelerate cry jane to an acceleration rate of .8 m/s/s
in 1 second.

see dick run

dick must use up 1 force unit to push jane every second that he pushes jane.

how many force units must dick have to push jane for 50 seconds?

dick uses up alot of force units pushing jane for 50 seconds.

can you count the number of force units that dick uses up pushing jane in 50 seconds?

whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle
whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle
whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle
whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle
whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle whistle

did dick use up 50 force units pushing jane for 50 seconds?

yes dick used up 50 force units pushing jane for 50 seconds.

since 1 force unit = 80N what is the total number of N that dick used up pushing jane?

80N * 50 force units = 4000N

if 1 force unit gets used up each second can you find the total number of N that dick used up by using seconds.

80N * 50 seconds = 4000N

Ok children I know that your brains must be tired by now
so put your books under your desk and lay your heads on your desk and take a nap.

those of you who are already asleep just remain sleeping.

Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/08/11 10:16 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
1N is the force required to accelerate a 1kg mass to 1m/s/s
in 1 second.

You don't have to wait 1 second. Even at 0.1s it's still accelerating at 1m/s/s. It's confusing to add "in 1 second" at the end. This would also be correct:

"1N is the force required to accelerate a 1kg mass to 1m/s/s in 0.1 seconds."


Quote:

Quote:
it will immediately be accelerating at 0.8m/s/s.

its not immediately or instant , thats why they use 1 second as the time period required for the mass to reach the acceleration rate of 1 m/s/s !!

Wow! No wonder our discussions never go anywhere. You actually don't know that a constant force causes a constant acceleration? That's what F=ma says. As soon as you apply F=50N to a 1kg object, you get a=50m/s/s. There's no "wait around for 1 second till it gets moving".

Quote:

and a constant force of 1N will constantly accelerate a 1kg mass at a rate of 1m/s/s

Now you're contradicting the above. Clearly this must be a misuse of words that's leading to miscommunication.


Question:

If you drop a 2kg object so it's in freefall under Earth's gravity (use g=9.8 m/s/s). How much time does it take from when you let go till when it's accelerating at 9.8m/s/s ?
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/08/11 10:21 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
[quote]
OK

so N*seconds = N


Just like this?

m/s * seconds = m/s

because seconds are built into the units of velocity meters/second m/s


I didn't keep reading because it looks like more of the same.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/09/11 12:21 AM

its not immediately or instant , thats why they use 1 second as the time period required for the mass to reach the acceleration rate of 1 m/s/s !!
if it was an instant acceleration then a 1kg mass could be moved a distance of 1 meter in 1 second using a force of 1N

Quote:
You don't have to wait 1 second. Even at 0.1s it's still accelerating at 1m/s/s.


ok kallog how long is 1 meters then?

and how long is 1 second then?

if 1N can imediately accelerate a 1kg mass to 1m/s/s

then why does the mass not move 1 meter in that 1 second?


f=ma

1N=1kg*1m/s/s
iv = initial velocity
fv = final velocity


velocity = iv + a*t
1m/s = 0m/s + (1m/s/s*1second)
velocity = 1m/s

avg velocity = .5 * (iv + fv)
.5 m/s = .5*(0m/s+1m/s)
avg velocity = .5 m/s

displacement = avg vel * time
.5 m = .5m/s * 1 second
displacement = .5 meters


its obvious that the mass does not move 1 meter
in 1 second so its acceleration rate might be 1m/s/s
at 1 second and after 1 second but not before 1 second.

thats why they use m/s/s

else

they would say that the definition of a newton unit of force would be.

1N is the force required to accelerate a 1kg mass instantly and continously at a acceleration rate of 1 meter per second.

even though the above would not happen in the real world
if the above were true
1N would cause a 1kg mass to move a distance of 1 meter in 1 second.

but not in reality.

instantly means as soon as the force is applied the mass would move 1 entire meter in 1 second.

but it only moves .5 meters because its not instant acceleration and that is why they use

1 meter per second^2





Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/09/11 01:06 AM

Quote:
just like this?

m/s * seconds = m/s

because seconds are built into the units of velocity meters/second m/s


m/s * seconds does not give a result in m/s

meters per second * seconds = displacement

40m/s * 10 seconds = 400 meters

apples and oranges kallog



Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/09/11 01:08 AM

Quote:
I didn't keep reading because it looks like more of the same.


you should spend more time reading , and also thinking about what you read.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/09/11 04:52 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
if 1N can imediately accelerate a 1kg mass to 1m/s/s

then why does the mass not move 1 meter in that 1 second?


Wow, this is a record breaking low for you. Did you really think about that? You actually have no idea what the general concept of acceleration is. You're confusing even the magnitude of acceleration with speed.

The answer to your question is that it takes 1s for the object's speed to reach 1m/s. So during most of that 1s, the velocity was < 1m/s, so it couldn't travel a full 1m in that time.

1m/s/s acceleration of an object starting at 0m/s velocity means:
time = 0s, v=0m/s, a=1m/s/s
time = 0.5s, v=0.5m/s, a=1m/s/s
time = 1s, v=1m/s, a=1m/s/s
time = 2s, v=2m/s, a=1m/s/s
time = 3s, v=3m/s, a=1m/s/s
etc..

0.8m/s/s acceleration of an object starting at 0m/s velocity means:
time = 0s, v=0m/s, a=0.8m/s/s
time = 0.5s, v=0.4m/s, a=0.8m/s/s
time = 1s, v=0.8m/s, a=0.8m/s/s
time = 2s, v=1.6m/s, a=0.8m/s/s
time = 3s, v=2.4m/s, a=0.8m/s/s
etc..
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/09/11 04:59 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
m/s * seconds does not give a result in m/s


I used exactly the same reason you used to say

40N * 10s = 400N
which of course is the same as
40 kg.m/s/s * 10s = 400kg.m/s/s

Just like my
40 m/s * 10s = 400 m/s
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/09/11 04:53 PM

Quote:
so it couldn't travel a full 1m in that time.


but it could if it could be accelerated instantly.

at a acceleration rate of 1m/s/s

1 second d = 1m , v=1m/s , a = 1m/s/s
2 second d = 4m , v=2m/s , a = 1m/s/s
3 second d = 9m , v=3m/s , a = 1m/s/s
4 second d = 16m , v=4m/s , a = 1m/s/s
5 second d = 25m , v=5m/s , a = 1m/s/s
6 second d = 36m , v=6m/s , a = 1m/s/s
7 second d = 49m , v=7m/s , a = 1m/s/s
8 second d = 64m , v=8m/s , a = 1m/s/s
9 second d = 81m , v=9m/s , a = 1m/s/s

you would in effect remove the need to use a constant of .5 to find average velocity.

you would find average velocity the following way

av = 1*(vi+vf)
vs the current
av = .5*(vi+vf)

therefore

displacement would be found the following way

d=v*t
vs the current
d=av*t


instant acceleration would mean that the mass would travel 1 full meter in 1 second , but because there is no such thing as instant acceleration it also isnt possible.


Quote:
In physics, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration

so with instant acceleration the rate of change of velocity would be 1m/s/s this way the mass would have traveled 1 meter in 1 second.


so with an instant acceleration of 1m/s each second
you would accelerate a 1kg mass a distance of 1 meter in 1 second.


thats really very clear , but maybe not to you.







Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/09/11 05:14 PM

Quote:
Just like my
40 m/s * 10s = 400 m/s


40 m/s * 10 seconds = 400 m/s makes no sense if you are delivering your result in m/s

your result should be displacement not velocity.

400 meters is the correct answer to your equation.

velocity * time = displacement

not velocity

Im beginning to wonder if you people ever took the time to
consider that your thought patterns have been compromised.

you are not thinking logically

and I find it to be








Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/09/11 06:42 PM

Quote:
I used exactly the same reason you used to say

40N * 10s = 400N
which of course is the same as
40 kg.m/s/s * 10s = 400kg.m/s/s


even your above shows that

80N * 50 seconds = 4000N is correct

because

40 kg.m/s/s = 40N
400kg.m/s/s = 400N

just like

80 kg.m/s/s = 80N

and therefore

80N * 50 seconds = 4000N is correct




Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/09/11 07:17 PM

when I wrote

Quote:
the force that accelerated each of the 100 kg masses
was +80N x 1000 meters = +4000N


you replied with

Quote:
No. That quantity is 80,000Nm. Nm is not force. Actually it's energy.


that would be if you applied a force of 80N for 1000 meters
I admit I made that mistake , but it shows that you do understand that 80N applied for 1000 meters would be
80,000Nm

and 80,000Nm = 80,000 Joule = 80 kWs (killoWatts per second)

the force was applied for 50 seconds so by dividing the 80kWs
by the 50 seconds
we get 1.6 kWs each second that the force was applied to the mass causing the mass to move the 1000 meters in 50 seconds.

so the total amount of energy consumed each second in moving the mass was.

1.6 kWs

so now we know the energy cost to accelerate the mass , if the mass didnt gain speed through the turn then the mass could be used to generate energy as it is being decelerated in a equal amount to the amount that was consumed by accelerating the mass initialy.

but the mass gains speed through the turn , therefore the mass can generate more energy by being decelerated than the amount of energy that its acceleration consumed.

and because the deceleration of the mass will cause even more force to be applied to the pipe the pipe will be accelerated even faster by the mass as the mass is being decelerated than it was as the mass was being accelerated.

reactionless propulsion with a twist of free energy

shaken not stirred

this way we can not only travel to our planets
in our solar system , we can also travel to
other solar systems and their planets and back and more.

but for now I would like to name its prototype

RSV for Remote Space Vehicle

we cant accelerate very fast and it can accelerate very fast
it could be used to intercept an asteroid that is on a near earth course and change its course.

we can do this and all that is stopping us is ignorance.


Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/09/11 11:05 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
I used exactly the same reason you used to say


even your above shows that

80N * 50 seconds = 4000N is correct


I'm using your way Paul! I know both examples are wrong.

I copied your way for the 1st equation, then I used the same way for the 2nd equation, and got a clearly wrong answer.

Tell me why your way works for kg.m/s/s but not for m/s. Clearly both units "have seconds included". That was your reason for using kg.m/s/s (N) instead of kg.m/s (Ns). So it should also be your reason for using m/s instead of m.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/09/11 11:09 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
but it could if it could be accelerated instantly.

at a acceleration rate of 1m/s/s

1 second d = 1m , v=1m/s , a = 1m/s/s


You omitted 0.5s. Why?

Why can't you see that the velocity takes a whole second to get up to 1m/s? It doesn't do it instantly. So during the whole 1st second the velocity is always less than 1m/s.

The rest of your post is trying to derive nonsense from this wrong starting point, as usual.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/09/11 11:25 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
it could be used to intercept an asteroid that is on a near earth course and change its course.

we can do this and all that is stopping us is ignorance.


And in your case ego. You have the technical capability to prove the concept but if you try you'll know everything you said is wrong.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/09/11 11:41 PM

Quote:
but it could if it could be accelerated instantly.

at a acceleration rate of 1m/s/s

1 second d = 1m , v=1m/s , a = 1m/s/s


Quote:
You omitted 0.5s. Why?

Why can't you see that the velocity takes a whole second to get up to 1m/s? It doesn't do it instantly. So during the whole 1st second the velocity is always less than 1m/s.



LOL , thats why I used 1m/s/s instant acceleration!!

if I used a instant acceleration of 1m/.000000000001 seconds/.000000000001 seconds

then that would almost be exactly instant.

but we were talking about 1 second and the difference between normal real life acceleration and fake instant acceleration.


Quote:
You omitted 0.5s. Why?


because there was no reason not to omit it !

ok , I'll add in .5 seconds for you


.5 second d = .5m , v=.5m/s , a = 1m/s/s instant

now I'll use 1 full second for the real life version of acceleration.

notice both move a distance of .5 meters

1 second d = .5m , v=1m/s , a = 1m/s/s real life
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/10/11 12:01 AM

Quote:
You have the technical capability to prove the concept but if you try you'll know everything you said is wrong.


you cant claim that , and besides Im not NASA
I cant just get in my car and drive out into space
and build one to see if it really would work.

all I can do is invent the thing.

it would be up to NASA to do the rest.

Quote:
you'll know everything you said is wrong.


so far I havent seen where you have shown why the math doesnt work , normaly you can get a really good idea if something will or will not work using physics math , so

where is the this is why it wont work at?
your so confident that it wont work you should
easily find some viable reason.

but you cant.

why?

just like physics math backs up physics laws
physics math also backs up this idea.


Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/10/11 04:24 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
1 second d = .5m , v=1m/s , a = 1m/s/s real life


Yes. but that's not 0.5s. The other thing you wrote was wrong. Try:

0.5 second d = .25m , v=0.5m/s , a = 1m/s/s real life
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/10/11 04:29 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
You have the technical capability to prove the concept but if you try you'll know everything you said is wrong.


you cant claim that , and besides Im not NASA

You've said you have various workshop tools, and car. You can make this with bits of wire and PVC pipes you know.

It occurs to me that a car engine is almost exactly your device!!! Each piston is a "mass". Each time a cylinder fires, the piston is accelerated downwards (never upwards). When the piston gets to the bottom of the stroke it reverses without changing speed. When it gets to the top of a stroke it reverses without changing speed.

It really is the same thing! Well the only difference I can see is the engine's acceleration is applied during the 2nd turn (top of stroke). But you could just retard the timing to make it fire after TDC.

Do you think a car engine running in space would accelerate itself through space?
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/10/11 04:50 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
where is the this is why it wont work at?
your so confident that it wont work you should
easily find some viable reason.


I have shown why the 1-mass system won't work. I did that by posting the source code for a program which analyses it. You can check each calculation by hand to make sure it's right. You can also run the program to see an animation.

I have shown that any closed system cannot do what you claim because it violates the law of conservation of momentum. That is, the velocity of the center of mass changes.

I have not shown why the new 100 mass or whatever system doesn't work because it's too complex for me to want to analyse. However you have analysed it and I have shown you at least 1 significant mistake in your analysis which you have not corrected. Any mistakes which affect the solution make the solution unreliable.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/10/11 10:40 AM

Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: paul
1 second d = .5m , v=1m/s , a = 1m/s/s real life


Yes. but that's not 0.5s. The other thing you wrote was wrong. Try:

0.5 second d = .25m , v=0.5m/s , a = 1m/s/s real life


Oh I made quite a big mistake there. But again, better see if you can spot it.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/10/11 05:05 PM

Originally Posted By: kallog
Yes. but that's not 0.5s. The other thing you wrote was wrong. Try:


when I wrote the below
it wasnt wrong.

Quote:
1 second d = .5m , v=1m/s , a = 1m/s/s real life

I was showing that it takes more time for a mass to travel
the .5 meters displacement in a real life situation vs a fake instant acceleration.

I thought you might pick up on it but I suppose not.

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/10/11 05:09 PM

Quote:
Yes. but that's not 0.5s. The other thing you wrote was wrong. Try:


BTW

Originally Posted By: kallog
0.5 second d = .25m , v=0.5m/s , a = 1m/s/s real life


that would be a displacement of 0.125 meters not 0.25 meters

Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/10/11 05:16 PM

Quote:
I have shown why the 1-mass system won't work.


It was getting old using the 1 mass system because the 1 mass system gave your side of the discussion to much to work with.

thats why I used the 101 mass system , LOL
this way by the time (50 seconds passes) when the 1st mass hits the turn my side of the discussion already has a large amount of momentum.

at 50 seconds the pipe and mass systems mass is 6100 kg
its velocity is +12.6722971873256 m/s

p=mv


+77301N in fact and thats way more momentum
than your side could possibly counteract with a mere
-4000N

your side of the discussion didnt even stand a chance.
somehow I liked it better that way.

and I believe you understand that and that is the true reason you have resorted to saying your not capable of doing the programming to determine if you might be right.

your afraid to find out.
or you just dont want people to know that you found out.


Quote:
I have not shown why the new 100 mass or whatever system doesn't work because it's too complex for me to want to analyse.


then you cant say that it wouldnt work.

Quote:
However you have analysed it and I have shown you at least 1 significant mistake in your analysis which you have not corrected.


oh , I didnt realize that you had found something , could you let me know again I might have missed it.

Quote:
Any mistakes which affect the solution make the solution unreliable.


yes it would , so where are the mistakes so that I might see if you might be correct finally.







Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 02:24 AM

Originally Posted By: paul

Originally Posted By: kallog
0.5 second d = .25m , v=0.5m/s , a = 1m/s/s real life


that would be a displacement of 0.125 meters not 0.25 meters


Yes!!!! I can hardly believe you worked that out.

And we still have 1m/s/s acceleration even at t=0.5s.

You can do it for even sooner times like 0.1s, or 0.01s, and you can still use a=1m/s/s. There's no need for a to gradually increase over a whole second.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 02:33 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
+77301N in fact and thats way more momentum


Paul, why are you still using numbers and units? Just stop it. You know that you cannot use algebra (you yourself said it's not right). You know you cannot use units (don't argue that again until you have a 3rd party or experimental results to support you). You know you can't distinguish between momentum, force and impulse.

So you want to know where your mistakes are? I already showed you. I don't need to go back and work it out again if you can't be bothered either.

Here's something else which makes your reason meaningless - An object that was accelerated by a 70,000N force can be stopped by a -4000N force. Yes it can, you can test it yourself with bathroom scales and toy cars, or something along those lines.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 03:18 AM

Ha , LOL

I didnt think you had found anything.

just your usual mouthing off like a lil twitt.

in fact I cant recall anything that you used to prove that
the idea would not work.

so as far as Im concerned you lost.

unless you have something to show that you think would
be a reason that it wouldnt work.

so its put up or shut up.

thats just the way it is.


you writing a 500 page book on how you have shown anything still proves nothing.

and besides you dont really think that any of the others who have been following this might actually believe you do you?

if I had been following this thread I would never even consider trusting anything else that you write.

I think your reputation on the forum has lost a lot of what you may perceive it to be , if you ever thought you had a good trustworthy reputation that is.


Quote:
An object that was accelerated by a 70,000N force can be stopped by a -4000N force.


wrong , see how you try to lead the readers the momentum of the pipe is the +70000N that the puny little -4000N has got to stop to keep it from not working.

LOL







Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 05:38 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
wrong , see how you try to lead the readers the momentum of the pipe is the +70000N that the puny little -4000N has got to stop to keep it from not working.


70000N is not a momentum.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 05:42 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
just your usual mouthing off like a lil twitt.


Paul, your frustration about your own mental inability has caused you to cross the line.

Enjoy your life of failure while I continue to make MONEY from my job doing calculations that you don't believe in.

Hahaha!
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 01:55 PM

Quote:
70000N is not a momentum.


I wonder how many times during this discussion you have used the exact same units to describe momentum?

Originally Posted By: kallog
A change of direction has the same effect on the pipe as a stop? How can you possibly imagine that to be true? What if we stop it, then accelerate it in the opposite direction. Will that give +8000N while a U-bend is only +4000N?


several hundred or more , and now that you cant find a reason to claim that it wouldnt work you want to make yourself look good by pointing to the same mistakes that you make.

I agree that I should have used Ns vs N but that also isnt a reason that the idea wouldnt work.

Quote:
Paul, your frustration about your own mental inability has caused you to cross the line.


Im not frustrated by my mental ability , remember your the one who claims that your not capable of making a program that would perform the calculations for the 101 masses , so wouldnt that be your frustration about your mental inability?

Hahaha LOL






Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 02:07 PM

Still waiting to find out what Paul thinks "kwh" means.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 02:29 PM

Quote:
Still waiting to find out what Paul thinks "kwh" means.


when I wrote 50,000 watts it was not correct , the total watts was 180,000,000 watts because there are 3600 seconds in an hour.

so in 50 hours

50 * 3600 = 180,000

1000 watts * 180,000 seconds = 180,000,000 watts

which is 50 kWh if 1kW is used for 50 hours.

and to describe that I also used 50kWh

so I admit that that was wrong but the 50 kWh was correct.

but I wonder why such a brilliant algebraist or kallog never did correct that ?

strange

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

Quote:
The unit, defined as one joule per second, measures the rate of energy conversion.


its just like 1 newton is the amount of force required to accelerate a 1kg mass to an acceleration rate of 1 m/s/s

in fact

One watt is the rate at which work is done when an object's velocity is held constant at one meter per second against constant opposing force of one newton.

-----------examples from wiki watt
A person having a mass of 100 kilograms who climbs a 3 meter high ladder in 5 seconds is doing work at a rate of about 600 watts. Mass times acceleration due to gravity times height divided by the time it takes to lift the object to the given height gives the rate of doing work or power. A laborer over the course of an 8-hour day can sustain an average output of about 75 watts; higher power levels can be achieved for short intervals and by athletes.[1]

A medium-sized passenger automobile engine is rated at 50150 kilowatts[2] while cruising it will typically yield half that amount. A typical household incandescent light bulb has a power rating of 25 to 100 watts; fluorescent lamps typically consume 5 to 30 watts to produce a similar amount of light.

A typical coal power station produces around 600-700 megawatts.


-------------end examples -----

do you see any of the above that have time tagged on the end?

so just like the
units N for newtons
the
units for watts do not require that you tag time on it.

if you have 50,000 watts you can use them in 1 second or in 1 year just like 1 newton can be used in 1 second or in 1 year.

even generators are rated at wattage not wattage per hour or per second.

why?
because like newtons , watts already has time included into its definition.

and Im still waiting to find out what your doctors diagnosis was.

I also know your only trying to find some way to cover up your ignorance about the difference between

square feet
and
feet squared

so just go play with your algebra.

and when the doctor tells you that you were wrong dont bother posting his results because every scientist, engineer, and mathematician on the planet says you're wrong.

it may just be that only every other algebraist that are as brilliant as yourself are the ones that will agree with you.

of course

LOL



Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 02:58 PM

All that verbiage and you still couldn't get around to telling us what 'kwh' means.

This isn't about algebra; it's about your intellectual ineptitude an dishonesty.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 03:20 PM

Quote:
This isn't about algebra


I agree , nothing really is.

Quote:
it's about your intellectual ineptitude an dishonesty.


if you look in the mirror you can see who your talking about
its not me.

you stepped in to the discussion with your intellectual ineptitude and dishonesty ranting about the way things are done in algebra and when your found to be wrong an apology from such a brilliant algebraist is no where to be found.



Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 03:26 PM

Your abject ignorance of algebra in particular and mathematics in general does not detract from the fact that you still haven't produced a definition of "kwh" - a term which YOU introduced and I did not.

Anyone who has paid attention understands clearly that you probably looked this term up and, discovering what it means, are lack the intellectual integrity to acknowledge that you were wrong.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 03:36 PM

are you talking about the 50,000 watt = 50kWh?
if so then I have already corrected that , would you mind correcting yours.

by admitting that you were wrong about your rants about
square area being exactly the same as squared area.

remember the stuff that you actually had to email your doctor about to ask him if you were wrong.

Quote:
when I wrote 50,000 watts it was not correct , the total watts was 180,000,000 watts because there are 3600 seconds in an hour.

so in 50 hours

50 * 3600 = 180,000

1000 watts * 180,000 seconds = 180,000,000 watts

which is 50 kWh if 1kW is used for 50 hours.

and to describe that I also used 50kWh

so I admit that that was wrong but the 50 kWh was correct.

but I wonder why such a brilliant algebraist or kallog never did correct that ?

strange
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 03:40 PM

Quote:
discovering what it means, are lack the intellectual integrity to acknowledge that you were wrong.


lack the intellectual integrity
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 03:43 PM

Quote:
you still haven't produced a definition of "kwh"


I certainly wouldnt ask you what its definition is and mostly I look up definitions in books and the internet , you wouldnt believe me if I told you so.

why dont you look it up yourself?

you do have the internet dont you?



Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 03:45 PM

Originally Posted By: paul


1000 watts * 180,000 seconds = 180,000,000 watts

which is 50 kWh if 1kW is used for 50 hours.

and to describe that I also used 50kWh

so I admit that that was wrong but the 50 kWh was correct.


1000 watts * 180,000 seconds = 180,000,000 watts = 50 kwh?


No amount of watt-seconds can ever equal any amount of watts.

Nor can any amount of watts ever equal any amount of kwh.

Algebra is not necessary to understand this.
Take a basic science class. What *IS* the last science class you took?
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 03:46 PM

I did not say I was wrong. I said I could be wrong. Not the same thing. Or is English another subject that you fail to grasp? Dr. Math has not yet responded to my email. YOU were the one who initially consulted him - as he was the primary reference on the wiki page that you first mentioned.

You have said a lot of stuff, but you have NOT answered the question I actually asked - the same question many times. What does "kwh" mean? What does it stand for?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 03:49 PM

Quote:
No amount of watt-seconds can ever equal any amount of watts.


whats the definition of watts?
whats the definition of watt-seconds?

The watt-second is the energy equivalent to the power of one watt sustained for one second.

your too stuck up on units , they dont always stick together the way you and algebra imagine them to.


1000 watts * 180,000 seconds = 180,000,000 watts

you dont need to tag seconds in the answer unless your a unit freak , its a worthless tag that only requires more typing.
and watts already has time included in its definition.

180,000,000 watts = any way you want to use it.







Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 03:59 PM

You're asking me a definition of a term that you first used, when you have steadfastly refused to provide one for another term that I have requested?

Talk about nerve!

A watt is a unit of power (rate of work production or conversion) equal to one joule per second (J/s). In electrical systems, this is the same as the rate of work produced by 1 amp across 1 volt. (P = VI)

Now, can you tell us what "kwh" stands for?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 04:06 PM

Quote:
Now, can you tell us what "kwh" stands for?


you can find it on my homepage

will that work?
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 04:10 PM


That is not a link to a homepage. It's a link to a google search.

According to the first definition that pops up under google (wiki),

"The kilowatt hour, or kilowatt-hour, (symbol kWh, kW h or kWh) is a unit of energy equal to 1000 watt hours or 3.6 megajoules."

Do you agree with this?
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 04:15 PM

I must be off for now.
but I will read your post later , Im sure it is important to
you that I read it and I intend to read it but there are things more important for me to accomplish at this time.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/11/11 07:34 PM

Originally Posted By: TFF
According to the first definition that pops up under google (wiki),

"The kilowatt hour, or kilowatt-hour, (symbol kWh, kW h or kWh) is a unit of energy equal to 1000 watt hours or 3.6 megajoules."

Do you agree with this?


YES I AGREE STRONGLY WITH THAT

Why did it say watt hours and then say that it is equal to joules?

notice it did not say joule-hours !!!

which Im sure your algebra would have a fit with that.
but what would you expect from a worthless meaningless
course of study.

Originally Posted By: TFF
No amount of watt-seconds can ever equal any amount of watts.

Nor can any amount of watts ever equal any amount of kwh.


Originally Posted By: TFF
watt hours or 3.6 megajoules


3,600,000 watts = 3,600,000 joule = 1,000 watt hours

Quote:
Nor can any amount of watts ever equal any amount of kwh.


Wrong !!
3.6 MegaWatts does equal 1kwh.


also to seal the deal
from the same page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt_hour
ta daaa

Quote:
Inversely, one watt is equal to 1 J/s.


Why didnt it say 1 watt/second is equal to 1 J/s

why would 1 watt equal 1 joule per second?

because time is included in the definition of a watt !!!!

you dont have much of a sense of time or the logic involved when dealing with units that have time built into them.

and just in case your still wondering here is the definition of joule

Originally Posted By: Wiki Joule
It is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or Nm),


notice a unit of joule does NOT include TIME
but
units of watts do !!!!

go put that in your wolfram , LOL







Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/12/11 02:38 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
Originally Posted By: TFF
According to the first definition that pops up under google (wiki),

"The kilowatt hour, or kilowatt-hour, (symbol kWh, kW h or kWh) is a unit of energy equal to 1000 watt hours or 3.6 megajoules."

Do you agree with this?


YES I AGREE STRONGLY WITH THAT

Why did it say watt hours and then say that it is equal to joules?

notice it did not say joule-hours !!!



Originally Posted By: paul

Because watt-hours is a unit of energy and joules is also a unit of energy. WATTS are unit of power. WATT-HOURS is a unit of energy (or work). Joule-hours are not units of energy.
Quote:


[quote:TFF]No amount of watt-seconds can ever equal any amount of watts.

Nor can any amount of watts ever equal any amount of kwh.


Originally Posted By: TFF
watt hours or 3.6 megajoules


watt-hours are energy, joules are energy. no problem.

it DOES NOT say that watts are equal to any amount of joules.


Originally Posted By: paul

3,600,000 watts = 3,600,000 joule = 1,000 watt hours


That's not what it says. It compares WATT-HOURS to joules, NOT WATTS.

Originally Posted By: paul


3.6 MegaWatts does equal 1kwh.

False. You can't even understand the sources you read.


Originally Posted By: paul

also to seal the deal
from the same page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt_hour
ta daaa


To seal the deal that you can't read English?

[quote]Inversely, one watt is equal to 1 J/s.

Not inversely. 1 w = 1 J/s, period.

You've missed the entire point.

Originally Posted By: paul


Why didnt it say 1 watt/second is equal to 1 J/s

because 1 W/s <> 1 J/s, because 1 S <> 1 J.

Originally Posted By: paul


why would 1 watt equal 1 joule per second?


Because 1 W = 1 J / s.

Originally Posted By: paul


because time is included in the definition of a watt !!!!

This is irrelevant. You're either a complete idiot or you're yanking my chain. It's difficult for me to believe that anyone is as thoroughly stupid as you portray.

Originally Posted By: paul


you dont have much of a sense of time or the logic involved when dealing with units that have time built into them.


Logic is a mystery to you, as is mathematics, as is reading comprehension.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/12/11 12:20 PM

Quote:
Logic is a mystery to you, as is mathematics, as is reading comprehension.


I suppose you think that is is logical to claim the below

Quote:

Quote:
because time is included in the definition of a watt !!!!

This is irrelevant.


No, it is relevant

because you try to change things that are established facts
in order to make your mistakes appear like you were right.

that type of behavior has no place in math or science and especially engineering.

Quote:
Nor can any amount of watts ever equal any amount of kwh.


ANY amount of watts?

how about an amount of 3,600,000 watts?

because that equals 1 kWh.


and time is built into watts.

so if I used the 3,600,000 watts in 1 second I would have used 1 kWh of energy in that 1 second.

even if I dont use the 3,600,000 watts I still have 1kWh stored up to use as I please.

I could use the 1kWh in .00000000000001 seconds and I would have used up 1 kWh.

or I could use it in 50 years and I would have used up 1 kWh.


just the fact that its there means that I have 1kWh

its obvious that you dont even believe what you write yourself

why dont you stop selling yourself short and start reading up on what your posting about before you post about it.


Its getting really old having to correct your mistakes.

this is most likely why students have such a hard time LEARNING the CORRECT way to do math.

because the algebra has already compromised their logic and they cant even conceive that time can be built into a unit because algebra tells them that they must multiply everything even the units that dont even have a value.

idiotic wasteful stupid illogical algebra.

I have no use for it because it causes people such as yourself to make so many mistakes and mistakes cause buildings and bridges to fall down just like I make you fall down every time you make a post.


the only reason you fall is because of algebra.

it is flawed.

Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/12/11 02:05 PM

No where in that article does it claim that 1 kwh = 3,600,000 watts. One is a unit of energy, the other a unit of power.

Kilowatt-hour means "kilowatt times hour."

The knowledge of algebra has never made a building crumble. You're just making [censored] up.

Nearly every post you make illustrates your magnificent ignorance.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/12/11 06:03 PM

Quote:
A heater rated at 1000 watts (1 kilowatt), operating for one hour uses one kilowatt hour (equivalent to 3.6 megajoules) of energy.


therefore

1000 watts used for 1 hour = 1 kilowatt hour
or
3,600,000 watts = 1 kilowatt hour

you must be reading another page !

I found it really quickly

Originally Posted By: TFF
Nor can any amount of watts ever equal any amount of kwh.


if what you wrote above does not mean what it says then what does it really mean?

1) Nor can any amount of watts
2) ever equal
3) any amount of kwh

1) an amount of 3,600,000 watts
2) equals
3) 1 kWh

thats pretty clear and straight forward.

I think you think that a kWh must be used in 1 hour
but that would be wrong.

think about your electric bill , and kilowatt hours are units of billing of electricity , you might use only 1000 kWh per month , during the month.

a single light bulb that uses 21 watts will use
21 watts * 3600 seconds per hour
which would be 75,600 watt-seconds per hour or 75.6 kW per hour or 0.021 kWh

using algebra try the following equation
I wont attempt it because Im not a algebrain

1kW * 1 hour = ?

in reality it is possible to use 3,600,000 watts in 1 hour

suppose you are changing the heaters out for a large complex that uses 3,600 electric heaters and you need to know how much electricity they will draw in order to ensure that your emergency generators can handle the load if they are all turned on because you want to make sure that the generator will not feel to much of a power surge and shut itself down because of its overload protection.

not counting all other electricity draws except the heaters and also not counting the initial surge.

knowing that the heaters will use a total of
1000 watts * 3600 seconds * 3600 heaters each hour of use

12,960,000,000 watts per hour

1) would you need a 1kWh generator?
2) would you need a 3,600,000 watt generator?
3) would you need a 12 gigawatt generator?

Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/12/11 10:46 PM


Originally Posted By: paul

1)an amount of 3,600,000 watts
2) equals
3) 1 kWh


False. Nothing in the article says that. kWh is a unit of energy. watts is a unit of power.

1 kWh = 1 kilowatt-hours which means 1 kilowatt times 1 hour = 1000 * 1 watt * 1 hour

And guess what - watts ALREADY have time units in them! AND YET ... there we have the kWh! Conclusion: whether something "already" has time units in it is irrelevant to the math that you do to it.

You're spouting nonsense. Take a basic science class.
Posted by: paul

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/13/11 12:13 AM

Quote:
1000 watts (1 kilowatt)


above is power

Quote:
one kilowatt hour (equivalent to 3.6 megajoules) of energy.


above is energy

Quote:
And guess what - watts ALREADY have time units in them! AND YET ... there we have the kWh!


Yes its because kilowatt hour (kWh) is not a unit of power
it is a unit of energy equal to 1000 watt hours or 3.6 megajoules.

a kilowatt hour and watt are not the same things
they are two separate units.

a watt is a unit of power not energy.
The unit, defined as one joule per second, measures the rate of energy conversion.

energy is measured in joules, but in many fields other units, such as kilowatt-hours and kilocalories, are customary. All of these units translate to units of work, which is always defined in terms of forces and the distances that the forces act through.

1000 watts used for 1 hour (is equal to) 1 kWh

do you understand that the above 1000 watts is power not energy.
but if you use 1000 watts for 1 hour it is equal to 3.6 mega J and it is also equal to 1 kWh

3.6 mega watts can be used in 1 second or
it can be used in 1 hour , watts per unit of time is energy.

The watt-second is the energy equivalent to the power of one watt sustained for one second.

so it just depends on the amount of time that your going to use the watts.

any amount of watts can be equal to an amount of kilowatt hours...

this is why your statement below is false

Quote:
Nor can any amount of watts ever equal any amount of kwh.


was that another typo were you asking
"or can any amount of watts ever equal any amount of kwh"
and the N was the typo?




Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Record Cold in New Zealand 1903 -26.6 C - 10/13/11 12:59 AM

I'm astonished. You got everything in that post correct.

Originally Posted By: paul

a kilowatt hour and watt are not the same things
they are two separate units.


In symbols, 1kWh <> W

Also correct.

Also, 1 Wh <> 1 W (one watt-hour does not equal 1 watt)

Also, 1 kWh <> 1 kW (one kilowatt-hour does not equal 1 kilowatt)