Re: inertial frames of reference

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: inertial frames of reference
Date	2016-02-08 13:31 -0600
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<n9aqep$mud$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(17 earlier) <2732eaf4-ccb2-47de-b27c-7b67ccd5e9d0@googlegroups.com> <aefd8257-bcfb-4e60-8463-60e58be9c3f8@googlegroups.com> <b0312582-2d56-4fb3-81ad-86160d6372cc@googlegroups.com> <n9abo4$1pjm$4@gioia.aioe.org> <94a495e5-6a30-4c85-ae2c-2bf6f98e91f0@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2/8/2016 1:05 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd..
>> Density and the mass of one galaxy is sufficient.
>
> You do not need total mass. You do not need total volume. You don't even have to
> try to calculate total mass from density and volume. You don't need total >mass AT ALL to calculate pull.
>
> So you are saying to calculate pull you dont need total mass, just density.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. And I've said it at least EIGHT TIMES, and 
this is the very first time it seems to have soaked in.

> So lets say that earth was same density but ten times larger, I would feel
> no difference in pull standing on this heavier planet than I would on earth?

No, I didn't say that either. You seem to be unable to understand what 
people write.

> By pull I mean I would not find it more difficult to stand walk run etc.
> So the moon must be less dense.  Hence the astronauts can jump easier?
> Nothing to do with its  size.
>

So you see? It takes eight or ten times of saying the same thing over 
and over again to you, before you even acknowledge what was actually 
said. Then you make up something else about what is claimed. Is it any 
wonder that you don't understand the basics of freshman physics? Is it 
any wonder that people drop out of conversations with you because you 
don't listen to what is actually being said?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Thread

Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 14:06 -0600
  Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-03 02:35 -0800
    Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 10:23 -0600
      Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-04 01:22 -0800
        Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 08:44 -0600
          Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-04 09:35 -0800
            Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 11:54 -0600
              Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-05 03:04 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 07:07 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-05 08:55 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 13:59 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-05 14:41 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 17:34 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-06 06:07 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 06:25 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 12:44 -0500
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-06 11:16 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-06 11:41 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 09:20 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-08 11:05 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 13:31 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-09 04:34 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 09:46 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 09:13 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-08 11:23 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 13:42 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-09 04:50 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 09:50 -0600

csiph-web