Motion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Free fall
Next: 50% OF POPULATION BELOW AVG IQ!
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Sep 2005 14:27 TomGee wrote: > > So you agree with PD and Worms. What else is new? They only believe > that because they were taught to believe that. Anyone with a real > brain would be able to support such a wild statement, but I see you > offered none, so that's just your opinion. > I make the assumption that TomGee has a brain... now if he would just use it to learn the basis of classical mechanics, Newton's three laws of motion. DBSFSTG
From: mmeron on 20 Sep 2005 15:21 In article <HsYXe.355214$_o.7926(a)attbi_s71>, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> writes: >Don1 wrote: > >> Well I dont know Randy, is that according to the law of action equals >> reaction? After all of the propellant has been exhausted isn't it all >> going backward at the same speed as the rocket is going forward? Isn't >> that what equilibrium is all about? >> > > Conservation of Momentum (is what Shead needs to learn). There is lots of more elementary stuff that he needs to learn first. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: odin on 20 Sep 2005 15:31 >> Conservation of Momentum (is what Shead needs to learn). > > There is lots of more elementary stuff that he needs to learn first. Yes, but even before that, he needs to unlearn a lot of nonsense first.
From: mmeron on 20 Sep 2005 15:37 In article <24GdnQ3sstAY_q3eRVn-oQ(a)whidbeytel.com>, "odin" <ragnarok(a)yahoo.com> writes: >>> Conservation of Momentum (is what Shead needs to learn). >> >> There is lots of more elementary stuff that he needs to learn first. > >Yes, but even before that, he needs to unlearn a lot of nonsense first. > Yes, true. Well, "reformat and reload" seems to be in order. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Sep 2005 16:09
gerald kelleher wrote: > */Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com>/* wrote: >> >> Implicit in the second law is a reference, and motion is always with >> respect to something. >> >> Newton's Second Law >> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/NewtonsSecondLaw.html >> >> Newton had is right, F = dp/dt is right on! >> >> "The motion of a particle is described by Euler's statement of Newton's >> second law, namely >> >> F = ma >> >> Here F is the applied force, m is the mass of the particle, and >> a = dv/dt is the particle's acceleration, with v being the particle's >> velocity. This equation, together with the principle that bodies act >> symmetrically on one another--so that the force particle A feels from >> particle B is equal to the force B feels from A--is the basis for >> understanding particle dynamics". >> >> "Newton's law completely describes all the phenomena of classical >> mechanics...." >> > > > Newton's law indeed - if you are so indoctrinated into just how > completely he brought everything within his ballistic agenda then I > suppose you are unlikely the appreciate what appears as an assault > on the eyes of the one real astronomer to appear on these forums. > > "Cor. 2. And since these *stars* are liable to no sensible parallax > from > the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of > their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system. > Not to mention that the fixed *stars*, every where promiscuously > *dispersed* in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their > mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I."[Principia] > > You want your complete explanation then enjoy the above passage for > it tells you just what your limitations are. > > You never encountered a real astronomer, what you have is cataloguers > in the mold of Flamsteed pretending to be astronomers so enjoy your > rotten dominance with a cartoon astronomical outlook for I assure > you that people know no better, either you or anyone else. > I'm not understanding what your problem is Gerald... |