FR Bending of Light -- Proof
in [Physics]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 27 Jan 2010 17:44 On 1/27/10 12:54 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote: > Sam Wormley wrote: >> >> You are incredibly naive, Phil! Take a freshman physics class. > > If v = m/s and s is reduced then v will increase. If v increases then E > = 1/2mv^2 will increase as well. Velocity is defined as dr/dt, Phil! http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity Didn't you study mathematics once, or did you just make that up!
From: Phil Bouchard on 27 Jan 2010 17:45 Androcles wrote: > > Oh look, we are playing Jeopardy! > "I don't know." - Phil Bouchard. > How did mechanical energy get into the conversation? > > Illogical idiot alert! You got me there, I can't answer that! You just saved Einstein!
From: Phil Bouchard on 27 Jan 2010 17:47 Sam Wormley wrote: > > Velocity is defined as dr/dt, Phil! > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity > > Didn't you study mathematics once, or did you just make > that up! Thanks for the correction, I posted too quickly.
From: Androcles on 27 Jan 2010 17:48 "Phil Bouchard" <phil(a)fornux.com> wrote in message news:4b60c20f$1(a)news.x-privat.org... > Androcles wrote: >> >> Oh look, we are playing Jeopardy! >> "I don't know." - Phil Bouchard. >> How did mechanical energy get into the conversation? >> >> Illogical idiot alert! > > You got me there, I can't answer that! You just saved Einstein! >> Ok, so PE can be negative. >> Now the rock falls and the PE is converted to KE. >> >> What is the KE of 1/2 m_rock * v^2 when v is negative? > > KE = 1/2 m_rock * v^2 > > KE will always be positive. "Negative PE converts to positive KE." - Phil Bouchard. Illogical idiot alert!
From: Androcles on 27 Jan 2010 18:10
"Phil Bouchard" <phil(a)fornux.com> wrote in message news:4b60c2a3$1(a)news.x-privat.org... > Sam Wormley wrote: >> >> Velocity is defined as dr/dt, Phil! >> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity >> >> Didn't you study mathematics once, or did you just make >> that up! > > Thanks for the correction, I posted too quickly. Idiot alert! Wormley should state that velocity is defined as upsilon = d(xi)/d(tau) in the "moving frame" and v = dx/dt in the "stationary frame". Didn't he NOT study relativity once, or did he just make that up! (oops... ...up?) Didn't he NOT study English punctuation once, or did he just invent his own? |