Motion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Free fall
Next: 50% OF POPULATION BELOW AVG IQ!
From: TomGee on 21 Oct 2005 19:41 Randy Poe wrote: > TomGee wrote: > > Randy Poe wrote: > > > The mass of the ship is not a constant. > > > > > > > > That's what I said. > > Therefore F = ma is not usable. > > > I guess you thought I would fall for your little > > setup, eh? > > It wasn't a "setup". You said that F = ma is true in general, > and F = dp/dt is not. > > No, that's not what I said. You're developing a miscomprehension problem just like PD has. I did not say your equation is not true in general. I said it is a derivative of the general function. > > > I propose a situation in which F = ma > is incorrect, and F = dp/dt is correct. It's a response to > your direct claim. > > Since you choose not to show why you think F = ma is > correct for rockets (my "trap": I ask you to back up your > claim with an example), then let me "trap" you by asking > you for some other situation in which F = ma applies but > F = dp/dt does not. Because, after all, F = ma is true > in general but F = dp/dt is not, right? > > > I have passed all the tests you have put up for me, > > You have? You always say "no". Did blank papers get passing > grades when you were in school? > > > but it seems they will never end. > > Yes, every time you make a statement like that F = dp/dt > doesn't apply, I'm going to ask you for a situation where > F = dp/dt doesn't apply. Since you always say no, I see no > reason not to keep asking for justification of that claim. > > Well, here's another one where it doesn't apply: 2+2=4. Peace that. > > > > You have been shown to be wrong from the > > beginning of your objections to my model, > > I have? Can you state a single instance where I have "been > shown to be wrong"? > > Just one? > > - Randy |