Motion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Free fall
Next: 50% OF POPULATION BELOW AVG IQ!
From: Randy Poe on 5 Oct 2005 09:45 TomGee wrote: > It is you who is well-known for not supporting your own wild opinions. > When I give you a reference in reply to your promise that it will > suffice, and you accept it, you still welsh on your promise anyway. > > Here's what PD on 09/16/05 - 2:19pm in the topic asking what keeps an > electron going, etc., in response to "Too Many Kooks..." question > below. > > > How can a planet rotate permanently without energy supply? After all, > > it's accelerating non-stop. > > > That's what gets me. > > "Which is proof that acceleration does not amount to a change in > kinetic > energy. (Who said that it was?)" Allow me to translate, since your brain is obviously hurting: Acceleration does not imply change in KE, since it doesn't imply change in speed (merely in velocity vector, which has both magnitude and direction). But it doesn't rule it out either. PD is saying the presence of acceleration does not mean you have to have a change of KE. PD is not saying that you never get a change in KE when you have acceleration. - Randy
From: TomGee on 5 Oct 2005 10:04 Since you're saying the same thing as PD, Poe, and your brain is upside down, his must be as well. Note that the statement refers to a spin rather than an orbit. I think the OP meant it to be an orbit, but PD took no notice of it and assumed he meant circular motion as in an orbit. To PD, even against his avowals to the contrary, there was proof that "acceleration does not amount to a change in" KE, and then he asked "Who said that it was?" Inferring from that he meant "Who said there was...?" (You non-native English speakers at times jumble up your words so badly it's hard to tell just what you're saying), he could have said that it was proof that "the presence of acceleration does not mean you have to have a change of KE", but he did not.
From: Randy Poe on 5 Oct 2005 10:37 TomGee wrote: > Since you're saying the same thing as PD, Poe, and your brain is upside > down, his must be as well. > > Note that the statement refers to a spin rather than an orbit. Correct, but the same principles apply. > I think > the OP meant it to be an orbit, but PD took no notice of it and assumed > he meant circular motion as in an orbit. PD's post is quite clear: every part of a spinning body is experiencing acceleration, yet is not changing in KE. > To PD, even against his > avowals to the contrary, there was proof that "acceleration does not > amount to a change in" KE, and then he asked "Who said that it was?" > Inferring from that he meant "Who said there was...?" (You non-native > English speakers at times jumble up your words so badly it's hard to > tell just what you're saying), he could have said that it was proof > that "the presence of acceleration does not mean you have to have a > change of KE", but he did not. Yes he did. You just quoted the words which, to an English speaker, mean exactly that. - Randy
From: TomGee on 5 Oct 2005 11:32 Right, Poe, but you said that, not him.
From: PD on 5 Oct 2005 15:49
TomGee wrote: > No, PD, you said no such things. You only wish now that you had said > such things. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it too often comes too > late. (Tomgee) TomGee: What are you doing? Angler: I just caught a fish. What does it look like I'm doing? TomGee: Ah! A trout. Angler: Actually, it's a small-mouthed bass. TomGee: No, you said yourself it's a trout. Angler: Uh...no, I said it was a small-mouthed bass. TomGee: You said it was a fish. Angler: Yeah... TomGee: I just looked up trout in a trustworthy reference. See? It says, "A trout is a fish. Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved." Angler: A fish is not necessarily a trout. TomGee: A trout is a fish. A fish is a trout. Same thing. Where did you learn to think? PD |