Motion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Free fall
Next: 50% OF POPULATION BELOW AVG IQ!
From: Herman Trivilino on 22 Sep 2005 21:15 "TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote ... >> Where did I say that? I would have snipped more, but I wanted >> to leave all the stuff you quoted from me so you can point >> me to the passage where you think I said F = p. >> > If you think you did not say it. then just what do you mean by F=dp/dt? Wow! Don't you know the difference between a quantity and its time rate of change? We can write v=dx/dt, where v is velocity and x is position. Do you think this means that velocity and position are equal? And that we can write v=x?! ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: TomGee on 22 Sep 2005 23:53 Herman Trivilino wrote: > "TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote ... > > >> Where did I say that? I would have snipped more, but I wanted > >> to leave all the stuff you quoted from me so you can point > >> me to the passage where you think I said F = p. > >> > > If you think you did not say it. then just what do you mean by F=dp/dt? > > Wow! Don't you know the difference between a quantity and its time rate of > change? > > We can write v=dx/dt, where v is velocity and x is position. Do you think > this means that velocity and position are equal? And that we can write > v=x?! > > > So you don't know what he means by that either, eh?
From: TomGee on 23 Sep 2005 00:38 PD wrote: > TomGee has made a couple of logical and semantical errors, not the > result of being stupid or recalcitrant, but because of incorrect > preconceptions that he has not yet abandoned. > > Um, PD? It ain't cool to talk to someone as if they ain't there. What you learned folk call "in the 3rd person". I get that a lot from some who just made a foolish statement that I could not let go unchallenged. It means they have a fear of me and so they respond to others who are there and respond to what I said as if I weren't there. I used to think only the white folks did that, but ignorance has no ethnic boundaries and it does not matter where they're from. I have tried responding in kind, hoping they would take the hint, but to no avail. So all I can do is ignore their little ignorant tactic of conversation rather than to waste time telling them they have no reason to fear me or the truth, as the pain that comes from learning the truth will soon go away. By the time people do that to me, it is because they're on the run from the verbal whipping I have administered to them as punishment for misbehaving in our discussions. Most of that is behavior which shows they run from the truth and not necessarily from me, so I understand their pain and I accept their "3rd-person responses" not as cowardly behavior but the kind that makes us keep coming back for more of the pain that comes from learning the truth about what's reality and what's bullshit. > > > TomGee has failed to recognize that, in logic, the statement "If A, > then B" is completely equivalent to the statement "If not B, then not > A". Their being equivalent means that both do not need to be explicitly > stated. For example, "All female mammals feed their young from mammary > glands," is completely equivalent to the statement, "If an animal does > not feed its young from mammary glands, then it is not a female > mammal." > > Okay. That's tautologous, therefore redundant. > > > In a similar vein, the statement "If a net force is impressed > on a body, then the body accelerates," is completely, logically > equivalent to "If a body is not accelerating, then there is no net > force impressed on the body." TomGee feels the first can be true and > the second one not necessarily be true, not realizing that the two > statements are logically identical. > > TomGee also fails to recognize that the incompleteness of a statement > does not affect its truth. For example, the statement "Some mammals > ambulate on four limbs" is a true statement, even though it is also > true that "Some mammals ambulate on two limbs, some mammals ambulate on > two fins and a pair of flukes, some mammals ambulate on two limbs and > two wings." Omitting the latter statements does not make the former > statement untrue. > > Wrong. I absolutely recognize and agree with your examples above. > > > In the same way, the statement "A body only slows > down as the result of a force acting on it" is true even though it is > also true that "A body only speeds up as the result of a force acting > on it" and "A body only changes direction as a result of a force acting > on it." Omitting the latter two statements does not make the former > statement false. > > Maybe that's correct in the village you come from, PD, but that is incorrect in the King's English. Your claim that the two statements are equivalent is false because when you include the adverb "only", you set a condition to indicate the one thing or person that solely or exclusively happens or is involved in a situation. Thus your 2nd and 3rd statements must stand alone individually and unrelated to each other because the word "only" excludes any other thing or person from each of the situations. If your primary language is not English, PD, you are forgiven for not knowing the many intricacies of the English language. Otherwise, you missed too many classes in high school and that explains your poor grammar.
From: TomGee on 23 Sep 2005 00:41 Herman Trivilino wrote: > "TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote ... > > > Now here, most readers are waving hands saying that the energy equation > > that includes momentum includes the energy of motion by definition and > > so that is a correct and total measurement of the energy in a given > > mass. > > In that sentence you use the word "mass" as if it is an object. And you > attribute to it a property called "energy". Don't you agree that energy and > mass are properties? An object has mass. An object has energy. > > A mass cannot have energy. That's nonsense. > > Then, Herman, what does E=mc^2 mean to you?
From: TomGee on 23 Sep 2005 00:50
Sam Wormley wrote: > 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 > > NOTE: I note the basis for the "3rd-person response syndrome" (yes, I made that up) in my response to PD's post in this thread today. the three of you (including Odin) should try to find the cure for it. Believe me, you'll feel a lot better about yourselves if you can learn to behave properly in these discussions. |