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


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

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
why cant you just answer a question and stop at that point
soon afterwards.

Quote:
within the context of what we are discussing can you point to where one of Newtons laws would implode?


1) we are discussing why you are not accelerating.

2) in the context of (1) above , where do newtons laws implode?

without drifting off to the vast expanse of the cosmos
and without reducing everything down to an unknown point
in the cosmos to use as a starting point to measure from.

please try to comprehend that the vastness of the cosmos
is not important when calculating a physical occurrence
that is local.

and deliver a answer as to where newtons laws break down
when you are trying to calculate why you are not accelerating.

SHOW ME THE MATH ... shocked

and uhhh , I sense designer math coming into play.

as a matter of fact lets just give you a short test.

if a 1 kg mass were placed in a level to the ground
centrifuge 1 meter from the center of the centrifuge.

note: the mass is not attached to the centrifuge or the rotor.
and is being held in place only by its own weight (the force of gravity).

also , the mass is a cube , 5 cm x 5 cm x 5 cm
(to prevent you from using a ring)


1) at what velocity would the mass begin to move away
from the center of the centrifuge?

2) why did the mass move away from the center of the centrifuge and not toward the center when the centripetal
force acting on the mass became large enough to cause the
mass to move?

(because centripetal force acts toward the center of rotation)

3) knowing now that a mass will travel in a straight line
unless pushed or pulled by a force that is pointed in another direction other than the direction that the mass is traveling.

would you agree that the 1 kg mass moved away from the center of rotation because the force that held it in place was less
than the force caused by the rotation (centripetal force)?

4) knowing that the mass did move away from the center of
rotation would you agree that the force ( gravity ) that
held the mass in place was not strong enough to continue
accelerating the 1 kg mass in a circular path because the
angular velocity of the 1 kg mass became to great for
any angular acceleration of the 1 kg mass to occur?

I would like to read your answers to all of the above
questions so that I can form an opinion of how your brain
handles questions.

this will help me to understand how your brain functions
so that I can discuss things with you on your level.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
why cant you just answer a question and stop at that point
soon afterwards.

That is a point I have been trying to make to Orac. He won't just explain one point. He tries to show how smart he is by extending his reply out of all recognition in the context of the original question.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
You almost have that correct in a round about way but you still need a little more input in order for me to fully
judge your reply , let me give you 10 or 20 more tasks to perform if you want to continue with the discussion on those grounds but before we can continue and before I can answer your reply you must first read the following books and web pages so that you will have some background on the subject.

Hint: you should begin by reading the internet.
heres a web site that might be of some help and could
possibly lead you to the internet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

then to further your understanding you might want to
read the books at the world library just to make sure that
you have read all that there is to read you may not need to
read all 3 million books but I would prefer that you did.

http://www.worldlibrary.net/

Extended Hint: once you have read everything and if we are still alive and
you can remember what you asked me , I will ask more questions
and assign more reading for you , surely there will be more books by the time you finish. laugh





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill
That is a point I have been trying to make to Orac. He won't just explain one point. He tries to show how smart he is by extending his reply out of all recognition in the context of the original question.

It has nothing to do with being smart .. please look up at the question posed in this post ... that is called CONTEXT.

Do orbiting bodies accelerate?

The answer is YES or NO depending on the framework you use ... WE ALL AGREE ON THAT ANSWER TO THE QUESTION NOW

It's sort of a silly question unless you isolate a framework. Now if I had have just said outright it's a stupid question I would have also been told I was being smart. Oh but wait I sort of did say that to Bill S as my first comment which I was trusting he would get as me not being smart but prompting it's a stupid question. I even gave details of framework switches he had made under that.

Originally Posted By: Orac
You are totally correct but still totally wrong and you can thank your teachers and classical physics smile

So I answered the question DIRECTLY ... but then Paul and later Bill G enter ... please review the thread from the top and what happened from there .... AND YOU BLAME ME.

Basically there is nothing I can do that won't be wrong. As for you two, there is never anything you are ever wrong on. I do find you both funny, in you concentrate so heavily on arguing me, you forget what the argument is about.

The ZERO wasn't answering the question posed. I wasn't being smart, or discussing anything beyond the question asked smile

Had you even realized we now have actually answered the OP question asked now?

I answered the question correctly in one post, and then dragged you two kicking and screaming to the same answer .... THE END.

You get the irony of you two complaining that it was me who put you two thru a whole pile of not needed discussion. Bill G knew the answer to the question but obviously decided just to answer the part about the accelerometer, so why don't you complain about him Paul? Bill G why aren't you complaining about Paul, he was the one that wouldn't accept the answer we have all now come back too? Bet I don't get an apology for wasting my time from either of you.

So stop complaining .... we all got there .... next thread please ... OP question answered and agreed by all after a lot of wasted time.

Last edited by Orac; 01/08/16 07:26 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #55125 01/08/16 01:22 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Orac , you are totally wrong and totally wrong.

heres the OP and there is NOTHING MENTIONED ABOUT A
REFERENCE FRAME OR A FRAMEWORK !!!!

Quote:
This is just a series of thoughts leading to a “conclusion”. I would appreciate comments/criticism, please.

1. Velocity is a vector which includes speed and direction.
2. Acceleration is change in velocity.
3. Change of speed with constant direction = acceleration.
4. Change of direction with constant speed = acceleration.
5. A body orbiting at constant speed is constantly accelerating.
6. Gravity is not a force that holds an orbiting body as though it were on a string.
7. Gravity alters the geometry of spacetime such that it becomes curved.
8. The curve thus formed is a geodesic, and is defined as the most direct path from A to B in curved spacetime.
9. Thus, a geodesic is equivalent to a straight line in flat (non-curved) spacetime.
10. A body travelling at constant speed in a straight line is not accelerating.
11. It should be reasonable to argue that a body following a geodesic at constant speed is not accelerating.
12. It should, therefore, be reasonable to conclude that an orbiting body is not accelerating.


your answers ... all of them are wrong.

I answered correctly. laugh

I am really curious how you would calculate a physical occurrence of a orbiting body using your non classical physics that you hold so dear.

but I think you said something about your non classical forms of physics not believing that a orbiting body accelerates
or something like that , and later you claim that newtons laws of motion implode ... haaaa laugh

since your non classical physics cant even calculate something
as simple as the reasons why an orbiting body orbits then why
should people who look at the occurrences in the physical world using the tools of classical physics to calculate those
occurrences ever even have a need or desire to change the
tried and true tools that they use that have never failed them.

I honestly want to see your maths and an explanation of the
maths showing why a object orbits.

otherwise your just talking.
nothing more , nothing less.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Paul, I'm very happy for you to quote me, but using red ink is contrary to my posting ethics. smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Hehe it's just dawned on Paul what just happened an now wants to re-open it. The trick Paul is to worry less about me and more one the argument itself.

I don't want to be accused of giving you information you don't need, so the the simplest answer to all you other stuff is thus

Answer: Follow how the other frameworks define things. It's like metric/imperial you simply convert between them, sometime what you are seeing as a different answer isn't, just like values in kmph don't equal mph. If you claim they are wrong then you must be wrong as well as you give the same answer. In fact every valid physics framework gives the same answer for this question and all agree with observed measurement.

Calculation: The calculation in any valid framework will look exactly the same just in different units so it's a waste of time to do it. You will get an accelerometer will read zero for reasons within the framework which is what is measured.

Paul if you still really want to see the calculation, write out your calculation and pick the other framework and I will write the conversion next to your figures. That will minimize me wasting time.

So once again this thread is done every framework gives the same answer just expressed in different units and discussion is pointless.

Last edited by Orac; 01/09/16 02:21 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer nec odio. Praesent libero. Sed cursus ante dapibus diam. Sed nisi. Nulla quis sem at nibh elementum imperdiet. Duis sagittis ipsum. Praesent mauris. Fusce nec tellus sed augue semper porta. Mauris massa. Vestibulum lacinia arcu eget nulla. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Curabitur sodales ligula in libero.

Sed dignissim lacinia nunc. Curabitur tortor. Pellentesque nibh. Aenean quam. In scelerisque sem at dolor. Maecenas mattis. Sed convallis tristique sem. Proin ut ligula vel nunc egestas porttitor. Morbi lectus risus, iaculis vel, suscipit quis, luctus non, massa. Fusce ac turpis quis ligula lacinia aliquet. Mauris ipsum.

Nulla metus metus, ullamcorper vel, tincidunt sed, euismod in, nibh. Quisque volutpat condimentum velit. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Nam nec ante. Sed lacinia, urna non tincidunt mattis, tortor neque adipiscing diam, a cursus ipsum ante quis turpis. Nulla facilisi. Ut fringilla. Suspendisse potenti. Nunc feugiat mi a tellus consequat imperdiet. Vestibulum sapien. Proin quam. Etiam ultrices.

Suspendisse in justo eu magna luctus suscipit. Sed lectus. Integer euismod lacus luctus magna. Quisque cursus, metus vitae pharetra auctor, sem massa mattis sem, at interdum magna augue eget diam. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Morbi lacinia molestie dui. Praesent blandit dolor. Sed non quam. In vel mi sit amet augue congue elementum. Morbi in ipsum sit amet pede facilisis laoreet. Donec lacus nunc, viverra nec, blandit vel, egestas et, augue. Vestibulum tincidunt malesuada tellus. Ut ultrices ultrices enim. Curabitur sit amet mauris. Morbi in dui quis est pulvinar ullamcorper.

Nulla facilisi. Integer lacinia sollicitudin massa. Cras metus. Sed aliquet risus a tortor. Integer id quam. Morbi mi. Quisque nisl felis, venenatis tristique, dignissim in, ultrices sit amet, augue. Proin sodales libero eget ante. Nulla quam. Aenean laoreet. Vestibulum nisi lectus, commodo ac, facilisis ac, ultricies eu, pede. Ut orci risus, accumsan porttitor, cursus quis, aliquet eget, justo. Sed pretium blandit orci. Ut eu diam at pede suscipit sodales.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Wile E
Quote:
Answer: Follow how the other frameworks define things. It's like metric/imperial you simply convert between them, sometime what you are seeing as a different answer isn't, just like values in kmph don't equal mph.

(a)If you claim they are wrong then you must be wrong as well as you give the same answer.

(b)In fact every valid physics framework gives the same answer for this question and all agree with observed measurement.



(a) if you use the correct units in math you will get correct answers to the math , there is no sometimes in math.

(b) then every valid? physics framework uses classical physics
math and not the fake BS math to answer this question.

Quote:
Calculation: The calculation in any valid framework will look exactly the same just in different units so it's a waste of time to do it. You will get an accelerometer will read zero for reasons within the framework which is what is measured.


that is complete BS , a laser accelerometer that measures acceleration between the ISS and the earth will measure a constant acceleration of the ISS as the ISS orbits the earth.

and this measurement of acceleration ( that your brand of BS physics ignores ) will be the same measurement that classical physics measures with its tried and true math.

Quote:
Paul if you still really want to see the calculation, write out your calculation and pick the other framework and I will write the conversion next to your figures. That will minimize me wasting time.


LOL , dude at some point in the future your going to need
to be capable of choosing the correct formula yourself when
you need to provide a answer ... you wont always have knowledgeable people around who know which formula to use.

and besides Im under the impression that you don't know how
to do the math and that is the main reason you chose the BS physics vs actual physics in order to avoid things such as classical physics math which doesn't accept BS answers.

laugh

looks like Newtons laws and classical physics are the
only ones that remain standing at this point

while any implosions that have occurred have occurred
within in the realm of your BS physics.








3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Dare dego, forte loras in erro. Demaint loras, dema trux, fullo causa 'n ens an dux!

Last edited by Bill S.; 01/09/16 08:42 PM.

There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
quia non est responsum
Firmabo super te meliorem doctrinam
Numquam enim succumbet, falsam doctrinam


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
One bailed, so lets see what Paul goes with.


orac , I was saving this , but since you bailed ... laugh

did you question why the ISS boosted?
was it because the ISS never did accelerate towards the earth and never did lose some of its orbital altitude?

or was it because the ISS is in constant acceleration towards
the earth and did lose some of its orbital altitude and the
boosting brought it back to the proper angular velocity
required to maintain the desired orbital altitude?

I know Im saying this to the back of your head as your leaving
the discussion but hopefully even as you are leaving you can still hear the questions that you cant answer because your
brand of physics chooses to dictate physical occurrences rather than to observe and measure physical occurrences.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
did you question why the ISS boosted?
was it because the ISS never did accelerate towards the earth and never did lose some of its orbital altitude?

The ISS was boosted because its orbital velocity had been reduced and the orbit had become lower than they wanted/needed.

The reason its orbital velocity was reduced was due to air resistance. We talk about the top of the atmosphere as if it were a fixed place. Below that point is atmosphere, above it is none. In fact it just slowly fades off until there is a height that we can say the presssure is too small to measure. It is still there and it does produce a small drag on the ISS and other satellites in LEO (low Earth orbit). So they occasionally have to boost it to get it back to the correct altitude.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quis est homo monotonus
Qui cotidianum dronus?
Rogo ut abiret eum,
Ut pacem sempiternam mecum.

OK, I know the last two lines don’t rhyme, but it’s closer than most Latin verse.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
yes that is correct Bill , the orbit had become lower because the orbital velocity had decreased.

this also means that the ISS had accelerated closer to the
earth.

the reason that the ISS accelerated closer to the earth is
because the orbital velocity of the ISS decreased due to
the drag caused by air resistance.

this caused a resultant lowering the centripetal force that is caused by the angular acceleration of the ISS that acts against the force of gravity .

which is what I am trying to get orac to understand.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Your mistake is you seem to think I care, or what you say matters .. I have better things to do with my time smile

Poor Orac can never get anything right, and he discusses things way beyond what is needed, and he is a bad person who kills GOD.

Discuss it with Bill G he agreed with my answer, and you both agreed you each only discuss things with the "right detail". Get Bill G to explain it to you, I am happy to go with whatever he says laugh

In the meantime, I am sure physics is quaking in it's boots that Paul has proved it all wrong. It's already trembling with Marosz who has done the same, I am sure it is going to fall over any moment and I am out looking for a new job.

Last edited by Orac; 01/11/16 12:38 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
sorry to see you leave again orac.

but that's a good idea you had about discussing this
with Bill G.

Bill G.

I believe know that orbiting bodies DO accelerate
and Im prety sure that you do to.

if so then we can end this one on a happy note
unless orac really hasn't left again.

even then theres no real point in carrying it further
would you agree?

or we could agree with orac to cheer him up.







3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Nope I am definitely out, this guy on the internet proved Einstein wrong and they are closing our whole department. I know when I am beaten, we all know the guy on the internet is always right.

Many jobs going in your religion?

Last edited by Orac; 01/11/16 01:32 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
no worries orac , your job may be going but science itself will
greatly benefit as the sensible people who avoided physics
and its current path down the fantasy highway lined with mirrors and illusions and magic tricks to entertain and
light the way to help the gullible find their dictated way and enjoy their trip while the sensible people were forced to line the highway as the performers presented their magic show of illusion and trickery wondering when the show would
end so that they could walk out without applauding the antics that they were forced to observe can then enter into a place of scientific higher learning that doesn't more resemble a school of art and magic.

Quote:
Many jobs going in your religion?


classical physics and actual science is a discipline
unlike the new BS physics and BS science religions that have surfaced recently that you were force fed while attending whichever BS school that you attended.

and don't worry orac , teachers can learn also.

just ask your newest students when you have difficulty understanding reality.



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

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

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

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

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5