Motion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Free fall
Next: 50% OF POPULATION BELOW AVG IQ!
From: Randy Poe on 23 Sep 2005 16:03 TomGee wrote: > Herman Trivilino wrote: > > "TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote ... > > > > >> > 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? > > > > Yes, I do. He's talking about a derivative, or rate of change. In this > > case, its a rate of change with respect to time. > > > > > Yes I know that, but what is the relevance of that to the topic? > > > > > > p is the momentum. > > > > > Yes I know that, but what is the relevance of that to the topic? > > > > > > dp/dt is the rate at which p changes with time. > > > > > Yes I know that, but what is the relevance of that to the topic? > > > > > > F is the net force. > > > > > Yes I know that, but what is the relevance of that to the topic? > > > > > > He's claiming that F=dp/dt, a valid claim. > > > > > 2+2=4 is a valid claim too, but (You guessed it!): Yes I know that, > but what is the relevance of that to the topic? Let me refresh your obviously-failing memory as to the topic: I said this: > > > That doesn't tell use "energy can be used as a force". It > > > does relate force and momentum: F = dp/dt. You responded: > > It would be a pity if you were right, but you contradict yourself > > immediately by saying above that force and momentum are equivalent. So the topic is "Tom just informed me I said force and momentum are equivalent". I asked: > 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. And you responded: > If you think you did not say it. then just what do you mean by F=dp/dt? So the topic is still "Tom informed me I said force and momentum are equivalent", and you amplified it to say that "F = dp/dt is a statement that force and momentum are equivalent". The next few posts, including this one, explain the statement "F = dp/dt" does not say "force and momentum are equivalent". Since I asked you to tell me where I said F = p (see immediately above) and you said "if you think you did not say it, then just what do you mean by F=dp/dt"? We all interpret you to be saying that saying F=dp/dt is equivalent to F=p. > > You're claiming that F=p, an invalid claim. > > > No, I'm claiming no such thing. Well, OK. You're claiming that *I* said F=p. And you're claiming that when I said F=dp/dt, that was a statement that F=p. So since the topic is "what does F=dp/dt mean", the discussion of the meaning of "dp/dt" is relevant. HTH, HAND. - Randy
From: Herman Trivilino on 23 Sep 2005 16:21 "PD" <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote ... >> > Then, Herman, what does E=mc^2 mean to you? > >> It means that mass is a form of energy. > This is possibly where the confusion arises. The statement above gives > the uninitiated the impression that mass is some sort of stuff and > energy is another form of stuff, and that E=mc^2 means turning one kind > of stuff into another kind of stuff. His question was asked in the context of the message he was replying to. That message was mine, telling him that mass and energy are both properties, and that he might better understand the concept if he kept that in mind. > And I hope that my comments above make a more careful answer even more > enjoyable to give. Thanks. ----== 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: Herman Trivilino on 23 Sep 2005 16:24 "PD" <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote ... > It also leads to confusion where one is looking at an object from two > different reference frames, where (depending on the definition) either > the value of the mass or the value of the energy changes merely in > going from one reference frame to another, and one has done *physically > nothing* to change the amount of either kind of "stuff". Certainly there are at least two definitions of mass in common use. When I use the term "mass" I'm referring to the total energy, measured by an observer who is co-moving with the object. This quantity is frame invariant, all inertial observers will agree on its value. ----== 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: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 23 Sep 2005 16:35 "TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1127416006.685491.292290(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... | No it wasn't, Matthew. Yes it was, Tom. No it wasn't. Yes it was. No it wasn't. Yes it was. No it wasn't. Yes it was. No it wasn't. Yes it was. No it wasn't. Yes it was. No it wasn't. Yes it was. Phuckwit! Androcles.
From: TomGee on 23 Sep 2005 18:12
No, I isn't, androcles. You're the one without the wit to recognize sarcasm about unsupported opinion when you read it. |