Prev: The Gamma function is holomorphic
Next: Question about maximality principles, lattices, AC and its equivalents
From: Arindam Banerjee on 26 Jul 2010 21:55
On Jul 27, 11:38 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 27, 11:30 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 5:43 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > can't say I get what you mean by "hit"
> > > w.r.t. "internal energy, but why is KE multiplicative?
>
> > By hit I mean the energy it takes to move from 0 to v, v to 2v and so
> > on.  This is done by internal force, with an energy source contained
> > in the body and the body is totally detached from anything else.  If
> > we take E to move from 0 to v, then it will be E to move from (N-1)v
> > to Nv.  So summing up N "hits" the KE is NE with a K factor for
> > inefficiencies.
>
> > This is the quality of motion using internal force, not a force
> > grounded to a R0 frame of reference.  All natural phenomena and
> > explosions can be more beautifully and clearly analysed with this new
> > formula, e=0.5MVVN(N-k) where k>=1.
>
> > Only proper engineering which I would very much like to do, can show
> > conclusively that you can move from 0 to v with internal force.  I
> > think I can do it next year.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
>
> To make matters a bit clearer, a car accelerating on a road always
> needs the road for it to go forward.  The road is the R0 reference,
> and it is providing the external force upon the car via the friction
> upon the wheels.  But an internal force engine does not need a road,
> nor air to push back, nor water to push back.  It works best in outer
> space, where there is no opposing force, nor friction.
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

So, the same energy you expend to take a step on a non-moving
platform, the same energy you take to take a step on a moving
platform. However in that same time, expending the same energy, you
move a longer distance with respect to the frame of reference of the
non-moving platform.
From: spudnik on 26 Jul 2010 23:55
friction is a loss to heat. there is always an opposing force, or
at least there is no vacuum that is too good to be true. I mean,
why do you think that light could have a speed (as opposed
to a velocity, for a rock o'light) ??

thus:
yeah, I'd forgotten about that, that the Florida dragnet disen-
franchized folks with similar names, most of whom happened
to be of African heritage, felons or not. (on the wayside,
Africa is an Arabic or Muslim name, esp. per Darfur.)
> So maybe some of the felons weren't voting illegally anyway.

thus:
iff as definitional seems to make some sort of sense, but
what is wrong with "a raisin is a grape, if and only if
-- that is to say for short, IFF --
it had been thoroughly dessicated?"
The definition of iff comes from Liebniz,
his definition of proof as satisfying "neccesity & sufficiency,"
and that is a matter of using the words in a literate manner,
in some way. (of course, if you can even prove just one
of the two criteria, it is cake, at least
in synthetic geometry .-)

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net

--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/august08-fermat.pdf
From: John Stafford on 27 Jul 2010 07:44
In article
<81d966d2-e41b-4fd7-9f01-cd92fa75a134(a)k8g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Only proper engineering which I would very much like to do, can show
> conclusively that you can move from 0 to v with internal force. I
> think I can do it next year.

Were you inspired to this vision by a Mexican Jumping Bean?
From: Arindam Banerjee on 27 Jul 2010 19:07
On Jul 27, 9:44 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote:
> In article
> <81d966d2-e41b-4fd7-9f01-cd92fa75a...(a)k8g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>  Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Only proper engineering which I would very much like to do, can show
> > conclusively that you can move from 0 to v with internal force.  I
> > think I can do it next year.
>
> Were you inspired to this vision by a Mexican Jumping Bean?

Never seen one. I am however inspired by the desire to rub the faces
of all the einsteinian scum, into muck, for ever and aye.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
From: spudnik on 30 Jul 2010 15:15
we aren't all einsteinians; you are the one,
who insists upon his reification of the corpuscle,
which is just a willy-nilly, mere interpretation of "quantum
of light," vis-a-vu Planck's great idea and
the electonic trace in the photo-electrical effect .... well,
his and Infeld's acoustic fridge was pretty cool!

thus:
there are two 3d versions of the pythag.thm.,
each with different dimensional attributes.

iff you don't study Fermat's numbertheorie,
you're up Shitz Creek without a paddle; however,
it is better to start with his "reconstruction
of Euclid's porisms," although they are just planar
(synthetic geometry: see "Geometrical Fragments,"
belowsville .-)

> NO!

thus:
and, the other half d'oil evaporates, as has
been shown of late (again) in the newspapers. Congress and
the Administration are a bit behind, in using Iran Oil's
big blow-out in the Gulf, to leverage BP's cap&trade nostrum;
eh?

a-yup:
Such microbes have
been found in every ocean of the world sampled, from the Arctic to
Antarctica. But there are reasons to think that the process may occur
more quickly in the Gulf than in other oceans.

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net/online-books/

--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: The Gamma function is holomorphic
Next: Question about maximality principles, lattices, AC and its equivalents