Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #866640 > unrolled thread

Re: What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground? Michelle Africano <nccr@amenica.he> - 2022-12-21 23:25 +0000
    Re: What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-21 21:53 -0600
      Re: What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground? Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 21:28 -0800
        Re: What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 22:13 -0800
          Re: What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground? Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 22:50 -0800
            Re: What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-12-22 07:55 -0800
          Re: What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-22 09:20 -0600
        Re: What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-22 09:18 -0600
      Re: What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground? Rico Amato <toaa@araocco.rt> - 2022-12-22 16:04 +0000
        Re: What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-22 12:41 -0600
    Re: What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-12-22 11:53 +0100
      Re: What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground? Rico Amato <toaa@araocco.rt> - 2022-12-22 15:57 +0000
        Re: What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground? Rico Amato <toaa@araocco.rt> - 2022-12-23 18:59 +0000
          Re: What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-23 16:43 -0600

#866640 — Re: What is the force that the Earth used to keep us on the ground?

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 12/21/22 2:52 PM, whodat wrote:
>> [...]
> 
> In common speech, "acceleration" means an increase in speed, and
> "deceleration" means a decrease in speed.

decrease in acceleration is decrease in speed. So 
*decrease_in_acceleration* is deceleration. A decrease in speed 
*is_just_still_acceleration* by your own definition, just the opposite 
direction.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#866649

On 12/21/2022 5:25 PM, Michelle Africano wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
>> On 12/21/22 2:52 PM, whodat wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> In common speech, "acceleration" means an increase in speed, and
>> "deceleration" means a decrease in speed.
> 
> decrease in acceleration is decrease in speed. So
> *decrease_in_acceleration* is deceleration. A decrease in speed
> *is_just_still_acceleration* by your own definition, just the opposite
> direction.

When you do not have a command of basic linguistic skills you should
probably avoid expressing your opinions about more advanced concepts.

Best of luck though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866659

On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 7:53:57 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote:
> On 12/21/2022 5:25 PM, Michelle Africano wrote: 
> > Tom Roberts wrote: 
> > 
> >> On 12/21/22 2:52 PM, whodat wrote: 
> >>> [...] 
> >> 
> >> In common speech, "acceleration" means an increase in speed, and 
> >> "deceleration" means a decrease in speed. 
> > 
> > decrease in acceleration is decrease in speed. So 
> > *decrease_in_acceleration* is deceleration. A decrease in speed 
> > *is_just_still_acceleration* by your own definition, just the opposite 
> > direction.
> When you do not have a command of basic linguistic skills you should 
> probably avoid expressing your opinions about more advanced concepts. 
> 
> Best of luck though.

Q.E.D.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866664

On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 9:28:59 PM UTC-8, claudi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 7:53:57 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote: 
> > On 12/21/2022 5:25 PM, Michelle Africano wrote: 
> > > Tom Roberts wrote: 
> > > 
> > >> On 12/21/22 2:52 PM, whodat wrote: 
> > >>> [...] 
> > >> 
> > >> In common speech, "acceleration" means an increase in speed, and 
> > >> "deceleration" means a decrease in speed. 
> > > 
> > > decrease in acceleration is decrease in speed. So 
> > > *decrease_in_acceleration* is deceleration. A decrease in speed 
> > > *is_just_still_acceleration* by your own definition, just the opposite 
> > > direction. 
> > When you do not have a command of basic linguistic skills you should 
> > probably avoid expressing your opinions about more advanced concepts. 
> > 
> > Best of luck though.

> Q.E.D.

You have zero idea about what Q.E.D. means, right, Jimbo?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866667

On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 10:13:14 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 9:28:59 PM UTC-8, claudi...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 7:53:57 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote: 
> > > On 12/21/2022 5:25 PM, Michelle Africano wrote: 
> > > > Tom Roberts wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > >> On 12/21/22 2:52 PM, whodat wrote: 
> > > >>> [...] 
> > > >> 
> > > >> In common speech, "acceleration" means an increase in speed, and 
> > > >> "deceleration" means a decrease in speed. 
> > > > 
> > > > decrease in acceleration is decrease in speed. So 
> > > > *decrease_in_acceleration* is deceleration. A decrease in speed 
> > > > *is_just_still_acceleration* by your own definition, just the opposite 
> > > > direction. 
> > > When you do not have a command of basic linguistic skills you should 
> > > probably avoid expressing your opinions about more advanced concepts. 
> > > 
> > > Best of luck though. 
> 
> > Q.E.D.
> You have zero idea about what Q.E.D. means, right, Jimbo?

Q.E.D.

LOL.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866679

Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 10:13:14 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 9:28:59 PM UTC-8, claudi...@gmail.com wrote: 
>> > On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 7:53:57 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote: 
>> > > On 12/21/2022 5:25 PM, Michelle Africano wrote: 
>> > > > Tom Roberts wrote: 
>> > > > 
>> > > >> On 12/21/22 2:52 PM, whodat wrote: 
>> > > >>> [...] 
>> > > >> 
>> > > >> In common speech, "acceleration" means an increase in speed, and 
>> > > >> "deceleration" means a decrease in speed. 
>> > > > 
>> > > > decrease in acceleration is decrease in speed. So 
>> > > > *decrease_in_acceleration* is deceleration. A decrease in speed 
>> > > > *is_just_still_acceleration* by your own definition, just the opposite 
>> > > > direction. 
>> > > When you do not have a command of basic linguistic skills you should 
>> > > probably avoid expressing your opinions about more advanced concepts. 
>> > > 
>> > > Best of luck though. 
>> 
>> > Q.E.D.
>> You have zero idea about what Q.E.D. means, right, Jimbo?
> 
> Q.E.D.
> 
> LOL.

Yes, QED, you show you have zero idea about what Q.E.D. means, crackpot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866676

On 12/22/2022 12:13 AM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 9:28:59 PM UTC-8, claudi...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 7:53:57 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote:
>>> On 12/21/2022 5:25 PM, Michelle Africano wrote:
>>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/21/22 2:52 PM, whodat wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> In common speech, "acceleration" means an increase in speed, and
>>>>> "deceleration" means a decrease in speed.
>>>>
>>>> decrease in acceleration is decrease in speed. So
>>>> *decrease_in_acceleration* is deceleration. A decrease in speed
>>>> *is_just_still_acceleration* by your own definition, just the opposite
>>>> direction.
>>> When you do not have a command of basic linguistic skills you should
>>> probably avoid expressing your opinions about more advanced concepts.
>>>
>>> Best of luck though.
> 
>> Q.E.D.
> 
> You have zero idea about what Q.E.D. means, right, Jimbo?

What he's done is assured I'll never read his posts ever.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866675

On 12/21/2022 11:28 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 7:53:57 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote:
>> On 12/21/2022 5:25 PM, Michelle Africano wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/21/22 2:52 PM, whodat wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> In common speech, "acceleration" means an increase in speed, and
>>>> "deceleration" means a decrease in speed.
>>>
>>> decrease in acceleration is decrease in speed. So
>>> *decrease_in_acceleration* is deceleration. A decrease in speed
>>> *is_just_still_acceleration* by your own definition, just the opposite
>>> direction.
>> When you do not have a command of basic linguistic skills you should
>> probably avoid expressing your opinions about more advanced concepts.
>>
>> Best of luck though.
> 
> Q.E.D.

There is no wonder that nobody listens to you, as far as stupidity
goes you've cornered that market.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866680

whodat wrote:

> On 12/21/2022 5:25 PM, Michelle Africano wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 12/21/22 2:52 PM, whodat wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> In common speech, "acceleration" means an increase in speed, and
>>> "deceleration" means a decrease in speed.
>> 
>> decrease in acceleration is decrease in speed. So
>> *decrease_in_acceleration* is deceleration. A decrease in speed
>> *is_just_still_acceleration* by your own definition, just the opposite
>> direction.
> 
> When you do not have a command of basic linguistic skills you should
> probably avoid expressing your opinions about more advanced concepts.

you can't even write English, */_you_stupid_sack_of_testicles_/*. Is been 
said to you, by the others, to *keep_your_idiotic_mouth_shut*, especially 
when proven an *imbecile*, in a way or another. *_Dr._Michelle_Africano_* 
is a doctor, making money out of physics. *You* are fucking 
*toilet_cleaner* janitor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866692

On 12/22/2022 10:04 AM, Rico Amato wrote:
> whodat wrote:
> 
>> On 12/21/2022 5:25 PM, Michelle Africano wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> On 12/21/22 2:52 PM, whodat wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> In common speech, "acceleration" means an increase in speed, and
>>>> "deceleration" means a decrease in speed.
>>>
>>> decrease in acceleration is decrease in speed. So
>>> *decrease_in_acceleration* is deceleration. A decrease in speed
>>> *is_just_still_acceleration* by your own definition, just the opposite
>>> direction.
>>
>> When you do not have a command of basic linguistic skills you should
>> probably avoid expressing your opinions about more advanced concepts.
> 
> you can't even write English, */_you_stupid_sack_of_testicles_/*. Is been
> said to you, by the others, to *keep_your_idiotic_mouth_shut*, especially
> when proven an *imbecile*, in a way or another. *_Dr._Michelle_Africano_*
> is a doctor, making money out of physics. *You* are fucking
> *toilet_cleaner* janitor.

Oh sure, like you know how to tie your shoes...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866671

Michelle Africano <nccr@amenica.he> wrote:

> Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
> > On 12/21/22 2:52 PM, whodat wrote:
> >> [...]
> > 
> > In common speech, "acceleration" means an increase in speed, and
> > "deceleration" means a decrease in speed.
> 
> decrease in acceleration is decrease in speed. So 
> *decrease_in_acceleration* is deceleration. A decrease in speed 
> *is_just_still_acceleration* by your own definition, just the opposite
> direction.

This is just plain wrong.
A *decrease_in_acceleration* is NOT a deceleration
A change in the acceleration is called a 'jerk' or a 'jolt'.
(whatever the sign)
The SI unit for it is the m/s^3, not m/s^2.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)>

This is in accordance with everyday language.
A clumsy driver for example may cause a jerky ride,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866677

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Michelle Africano <nccr@amenica.he> wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> 
>> > On 12/21/22 2:52 PM, whodat wrote: [...]
>> > In common speech, "acceleration" means an increase in speed, and
>> > "deceleration" means a decrease in speed.
>> 
>> decrease in acceleration is decrease in speed. So
>> *decrease_in_acceleration* is deceleration. A decrease in speed
>> *is_just_still_acceleration* by your own definition, just the opposite
>> direction.
> 
> This is just plain wrong.
> A *decrease_in_acceleration* is NOT a deceleration A change in the
> acceleration is called a 'jerk' or a 'jolt'.
> (whatever the sign) The SI unit for it is the m/s^3, not m/s^2.

it's *NOT* wrong. Yes it can be considered *_a_3rd_order_motion_*, a 
change in acceleration (up or down), which is a *_jerk_*, but the 
definition of deceleration, also said above, is */_common_speech_/*.

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)>

no need for that, I am an expert.

> This is in accordance with */_everyday_language_/*.

now you come home, and learned something. 
It is exactly how *_Dr._Michelle_Africano_* <nccr@amenica.he> said. Go 
reread and learn.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866737

Volney wrote:

> On 12/22/2022 10:57 AM, Rico Amato wrote:
>>> Michelle Africano <nccr@amenica.he> wrote:
>> it's *NOT* wrong. Yes it can be considered *_a_3rd_order_motion_*, a
>> change in acceleration (up or down), which is a *_jerk_*, but the
>> definition of deceleration, also said above, is */_common_speech_/*.
> 
> N̶o̶, n̶y̶m̶s̶h̶i̶f̶t̶e̶r̶, t̶h̶e̶ "j̶e̶r̶k̶" i̶s̶ a̶ c̶h̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ i̶n̶ a̶c̶c̶e̶l̶e̶r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶, w̶h̶i̶l̶e̶
> d̶e̶c̶e̶l̶e̶r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ i̶s̶ a̶n̶ a̶c̶c̶e̶l̶e̶r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ i̶s̶ n̸̶̢͙̯͓̝͔̣͈̓̄̆̀̓̈̾̕͜e̵̶̢͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝g̶̶͎̲̲͎͍͈̱͔̭̾à̶̶̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽t̵̶̨̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅi̶̶̢͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕v̶̶͙͗͒̿̌̆̐͝e̵̶̢͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝ r̸̶̡̹͚̣͔͍̮̩͌͐͝e̵̶̢͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝l̷̶̡̧̢̙͈͍͈͈̉̄͋̔̉̆͝à̶̶̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽t̵̶̨̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅi̶̶̢͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕v̶̶͙͗͒̿̌̆̐͝e̵̶̢͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝ t̵̶̨̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅỏ̵̶̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕ t̶h̶e̶
> v̶e̶l̶o̶c̶i̶t̶y̶ (i̶n̶ o̶n̶e̶ d̶i̶m̶e̶n̶s̶i̶o̶n̶) m̶e̶a̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ t̶h̶e̶ v̶e̶l̶o̶c̶i̶t̶y̶ d̶e̶c̶r̶e̶a̶s̶e̶s̶ i̶n̶ a̶b̶s̶o̶l̶u̶t̶e̶
> v̶a̶l̶u̶e̶. T̶h̶i̶s̶ i̶s̶ c̶o̶m̶m̶o̶n̶ e̶v̶e̶r̶y̶d̶a̶y̶ u̶s̶a̶g̶e̶.

yet another proof you are an *_inbreed,_braindead_imbecile_*. Gedanken you 
are in a train, no windows, constant speed. You can't sense the speed. 
Then feel a push, constant acceleration opposite direction. The speed is 
*_still_positive_*. And the "jerk" is *_info_* usually LOST dealing with 
acceleration equations, considering the acceleration constant. 

and since YOU *_inbreed_moron_* (based on national inheritance) talks 
about vectors, those are *_ALWAYS_positive_*, including along the opposite 
direction. You also compare acceleration to speeds, which are different 
order domain, you uneducated electronic engineer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866759

On 12/23/2022 12:59 PM, Rico Amato wrote:
> Volney wrote:
> 
>> On 12/22/2022 10:57 AM, Rico Amato wrote:
>>>> Michelle Africano <nccr@amenica.he> wrote:
>>> it's *NOT* wrong. Yes it can be considered *_a_3rd_order_motion_*, a
>>> change in acceleration (up or down), which is a *_jerk_*, but the
>>> definition of deceleration, also said above, is */_common_speech_/*.
>>
>> N̶o̶, n̶y̶m̶s̶h̶i̶f̶t̶e̶r̶, t̶h̶e̶ "j̶e̶r̶k̶" i̶s̶ a̶ c̶h̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ i̶n̶ a̶c̶c̶e̶l̶e̶r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶, w̶h̶i̶l̶e̶
>> d̶e̶c̶e̶l̶e̶r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ i̶s̶ a̶n̶ a̶c̶c̶e̶l̶e̶r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ i̶s̶ n̸̶̢͙̯͓̝͔̣͈̓̄̆̀̓̈̾̕͜e̵̶̢͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝g̶̶͎̲̲͎͍͈̱͔̭̾à̶̶̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽t̵̶̨̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅi̶̶̢͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕v̶̶͙͗͒̿̌̆̐͝e̵̶̢͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝ r̸̶̡̹͚̣͔͍̮̩͌͐͝e̵̶̢͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝l̷̶̡̧̢̙͈͍͈͈̉̄͋̔̉̆͝à̶̶̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽t̵̶̨̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅi̶̶̢͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕v̶̶͙͗͒̿̌̆̐͝e̵̶̢͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝ t̵̶̨̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅỏ̵̶̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕ t̶h̶e̶
>> v̶e̶l̶o̶c̶i̶t̶y̶ (i̶n̶ o̶n̶e̶ d̶i̶m̶e̶n̶s̶i̶o̶n̶) m̶e̶a̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ t̶h̶e̶ v̶e̶l̶o̶c̶i̶t̶y̶ d̶e̶c̶r̶e̶a̶s̶e̶s̶ i̶n̶ a̶b̶s̶o̶l̶u̶t̶e̶
>> v̶a̶l̶u̶e̶. T̶h̶i̶s̶ i̶s̶ c̶o̶m̶m̶o̶n̶ e̶v̶e̶r̶y̶d̶a̶y̶ u̶s̶a̶g̶e̶.
> 
> yet another proof you are an *_inbreed,_braindead_imbecile_*. Gedanken you
> are in a train, no windows, constant speed. You can't sense the speed.
> Then feel a push, constant acceleration opposite direction. The speed is
> *_still_positive_*. And the "jerk" is *_info_* usually LOST dealing with
> acceleration equations, considering the acceleration constant.
> 
> and since YOU *_inbreed_moron_* (based on national inheritance) talks
> about vectors, those are *_ALWAYS_positive_*, including along the opposite
> direction. You also compare acceleration to speeds, which are different
> order domain, you uneducated electronic engineer.

I'm glad you changed the trajectory of your attempts to insult others.

The problem remains that your grasp of physics is at best marginal, at
times nonexistent. But since your discussions are presently within the
realm of science, I will defer from further comment and depart in peace.

Your discussions are certainly quite a few levels better than some of
the others posting here. Have fun!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web