Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #546785 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-20 11:31 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-31 13:51 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 147 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-20 11:31 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:40 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:32 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-20 14:14 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-21 05:10 +0000
Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 10:58 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-23 19:01 +0000
Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 13:10 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 16:25 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-20 19:47 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 05:37 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 08:28 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 06:57 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 09:15 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 07:48 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-22 19:20 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-23 14:43 +1100
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 12:11 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-23 13:15 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-24 04:48 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 08:33 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 01:57 -0500
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-25 05:32 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:56 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 06:34 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 14:13 -0500
Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 08:33 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 01:58 -0500
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:09 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-25 09:56 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 13:29 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 09:25 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-25 09:48 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 11:55 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-25 14:57 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-24 16:03 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 18:32 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-25 00:50 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:52 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-25 11:20 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 13:34 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-25 15:41 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:25 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-26 10:54 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 15:32 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-27 03:15 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 10:18 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-27 12:52 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 15:51 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-27 14:09 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 16:23 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 05:26 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 09:10 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 10:01 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 13:14 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 13:02 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 16:30 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 15:06 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 17:15 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 18:00 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 04:47 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:19 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 07:54 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 06:44 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:53 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 07:07 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 07:24 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 07:45 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:32 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:50 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:50 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby hates the truth because it convicts him. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:01 -0500
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 13:27 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:52 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 09:33 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:11 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:59 -0500
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:08 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:39 -0500
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:16 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:06 -0500
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:40 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 04:56 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 04:56 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-27 17:56 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-27 18:57 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 05:43 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 09:13 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 09:19 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 14:47 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 16:52 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 17:10 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 01:13 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:16 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 09:26 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:05 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:52 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:31 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-30 07:37 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:58 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-01 03:05 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 09:40 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 09:34 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:14 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:58 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:39 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-30 07:43 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 14:01 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:12 -0500
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 08:59 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 09:03 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 11:40 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-30 11:36 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:44 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-23 05:19 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-23 06:10 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 10:06 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 07:23 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-31 08:53 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 11:54 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 14:04 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference xxein1@att.net - 2016-01-31 15:01 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 19:07 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:54 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 15:04 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-01 03:37 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 04:18 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 04:26 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 09:52 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 08:34 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-01 10:40 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 12:55 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 13:55 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-01 16:38 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 07:19 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-02 09:53 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 12:55 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 16:27 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-02 01:39 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-02 05:49 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-02 10:49 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 13:20 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 09:43 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 04:20 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 09:55 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 09:43 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:51 -0600
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 14:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <eLOqy.228369$8P4.156168@fx30.iad> |
| In reply to | #549148 |
On 01/29/2016 01:16 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/29/2016 11:39 AM, benj wrote:
>
>> Hey Boinker, there is no motion in the radial direction! The string
>> isn't accelerating and so how can the ball? And the ball is moving with
>> constant tangential velocity at that. So there is no acceleration there!
>> You are just making up stories!
>
> If you know better and are baiting me, I won't bite.
> If you don't know better and this is what you really believe, then
> you've just reminded us all how little you know about even high-school
> physics.
>
My high school physics teacher was an idiot. Hard to imagine but even
dumber than you. He didn't make wooden toys but was also the driving
instructor and golf coach. Say no more.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 14:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8gink$570$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #549177 |
On 1/29/2016 1:06 PM, benj wrote: > On 01/29/2016 01:16 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/29/2016 11:39 AM, benj wrote: >> >>> Hey Boinker, there is no motion in the radial direction! The string >>> isn't accelerating and so how can the ball? And the ball is moving with >>> constant tangential velocity at that. So there is no acceleration there! >>> You are just making up stories! >> >> If you know better and are baiting me, I won't bite. >> If you don't know better and this is what you really believe, then >> you've just reminded us all how little you know about even high-school >> physics. >> > > My high school physics teacher was an idiot. Hard to imagine but even > dumber than you. He didn't make wooden toys but was also the driving > instructor and golf coach. Say no more. Well that explains your grip on high school physics. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 04:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <149bf4a8-2a66-4d49-b556-5c6627a54661@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548827 |
What I said is that in a frictionless environment, you can stop that rotation of your hand, and you can just bring your hand to the axis and keep it still, and the ball will keep going around in a circle FOREVER. -------------- Forever is a long time. Wouldn't tiny gravitational waves dissipating the rotational energy eventually stop it? "Forever is a really long time. Especially towards the end" -Woody Allen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 04:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a4db6f30-d173-4576-b178-f6f9f5e56731@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548827 |
What I said is that in a frictionless environment, you can stop that rotation of your hand, and you can just bring your hand to the axis and keep it still, and the ball will keep going around in a circle FOREVER. -------------- Forever is a long time. Wouldn't tiny gravitational waves dissipating the rotational energy eventually stop it? "Forever is a really long time. Especially towards the end" -Woody Allen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 17:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <776e1f1d-99f3-4532-8086-dde827be1dd9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548658 |
On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 5:09:19 PM UTC-5, jay moseley wrote: > Odd wrote... > > > More specifically it is pulling on the rotating ball as it constantly > changes direction in in the universe frame. > In the string frame dont forget that the universe is still there. > > >Notice that this supposed influence of the rest of the universe DISAPPEARS when you are in the inertial reference frame where the ball is going around in a circle. Now the motion of the ball is completely accountable by ONE force -- the unbalanced force of the string pulling inward on the ball. In this frame, there is no equilibrium; the ball is clearly accelerating, and the inward force due the tension in the string completely accounts for that acceleration. Here, the universe is still there, but no outward force is needed! So then the question is, in this frame, where did this force go? The universe remains and the outward >force on the ball disappears? > > In this frame how do you account for the fact that you need to > continually accelerate the ball to keep it going in a circle? What > force prevents the ball from infinitely rotating in a circle if > you stopped pulling on the string? For one major thing, air resistance. The thing that makes a feather fall slower than a bowling bowl, the law of gravity to the contrary. Air resistance is 'visible' in the ball's frame, and in the string's frame. I hope that's what you're asking - what I'm answering.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 18:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5d4ee816-7d31-4f05-820a-89e2b6c43b30@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548695 |
On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 8:56:46 PM UTC-5, kqui...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 5:09:19 PM UTC-5, jay moseley wrote: > > Odd wrote... > > > > More specifically it is pulling on the rotating ball as it constantly > changes direction in in the universe frame. > In the string frame dont forget that the universe is still there. > > > > >Notice that this supposed influence of the rest of the universe DISAPPEARS when you are in the inertial reference frame where the ball is going around in a circle. Now the motion of the ball is completely accountable by ONE force -- the unbalanced force of the string pulling inward on the ball. In this frame, there is no equilibrium; the ball is clearly accelerating, and the inward force due the tension in the string completely accounts for that acceleration. Here, the universe is still there, but no outward force is needed! So then the question is, in this frame, where did this force go? The universe remains and the outward >force on the ball disappears? > > > > In this frame how do you account for the fact that you need to > > continually accelerate the ball to keep it going in a circle? What > > force prevents the ball from infinitely rotating in a circle if > > you stopped pulling on the string? > > For one major thing, air resistance. The thing that makes a feather fall slower than a bowling bowl, the law of gravity to the contrary. Air resistance is 'visible' in the ball's frame, and in the string's frame. > > I hope that's what you're asking - what I'm answering. Actually you might be asking something else - why do I have to exert force to keep an object moving in a circle. The object doesn't know it's been moving in a circle. It actually probably thinks it's moving in a straight line. WE know it's moving in a circle. Also, conservation of momentum is vector momentum, not just m*v. v is a vector. That means it's pointing in a straight line to somewhere. So that's three answers of which one is kind of dumb. Maybe none of them are asking the question in your mind.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 05:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1fdabb0a-5e1a-4577-b96c-764f7a0e4e58@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548699 |
kqui wrote.. > > I hope that's what you're asking - what I'm answering. >Actually you might be asking something else - "why do I have to exert force to keep an object moving in a circle.?" Sort of. What I am trying to suggest is that it is inertia that slows a ball spinning in a circle. Unless a constant force is applied by pulling through the string. So when Odd asked me: "where did the centrifugal force from the rotating non inertial frame go to in the inertial frame?" I answered with a rhetorical question by asking what the force was called that opposes the change of direction in the inertial frame called. Assuming he would say inertia. Which would answer his question to me. Instead, he seems to be saying there is no force that opposes a change of direction of a moving object in an inertial frame.?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 09:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8db6q$12du$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #548757 |
On 1/28/2016 7:43 AM, jay moseley wrote: > Sort of. What I am trying to suggest is that it is inertia > that slows a ball spinning in a circle. Heck no. It's friction. ALWAYS friction. And here's how you can test this. Do the spinning in an evacuated chamber. Remove any bend in the string at the pivot by redesigning the pivot. Remove the friction at the pivot. Now the ball will continue in a circle at the end of that string FOREVER. > Unless a constant force > is applied by pulling through the string. So when Odd asked me: > "where did the centrifugal force from the rotating non inertial frame > go to in the inertial frame?" > I answered with a rhetorical question by asking what the force was > called that opposes the change of direction in the inertial frame > called. Assuming he would say inertia. Which would answer his > question to me. > Instead, he seems to be saying there is no force that opposes > a change of direction of a moving object in an inertial frame.? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 09:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8dbip$13c7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #548757 |
On 1/28/2016 7:43 AM, jay moseley wrote: > Sort of. What I am trying to suggest is that it is inertia > that slows a ball spinning in a circle. Unless a constant force > is applied by pulling through the string. So when Odd asked me: > "where did the centrifugal force from the rotating non inertial frame > go to in the inertial frame?" > I answered with a rhetorical question by asking what the force was > called that opposes the change of direction in the inertial frame > called. Assuming he would say inertia. Which would answer his > question to me. > Instead, he seems to be saying there is no force that opposes > a change of direction of a moving object in an inertial frame.? Jay, Aristotle believed that the natural state of all things was a state of rest. He believed that for something to have constant motion, there had to be an applied force to sustain that motion. Galileo showed (and supported with experiment) that this was completely wrong. He showed first of all, rest is an accident of reference frame. There is no absolute rest, so how could objects seek absolute rest? Secondly, he showed that uniform motion was an indication of NO net force acting on the object, not that there is a motion-sustaining force. So it seems like you're regressing to Aristotle and have rejected Galileo. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 14:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d7508dfa-c04a-4eb1-b323-afb1269a55e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548767 |
Odd wrote... >> /2016 7:43 AM, jay moseley wrote: > Sort of. What I am trying to suggest is that it is inertia > that slows a ball spinning in a circle. Unless a constant force > is applied by pulling through the string. So when Odd asked me: > "where did the centrifugal force from the rotating non inertial frame > go to in the inertial frame?" > I answered with a rhetorical question by asking what the force was > called that opposes the change of direction in the inertial frame > called. Assuming he would say inertia. Which would answer his > question to me. > Instead, he seems to be saying there is no force that opposes > a change of >>direction of a moving object in an inertial frame.? >Jay, Aristotle believed that the natural state of all things was a state of rest. He believed that for something to have constant motion, there had to be an applied force to sustain that motion. Galileo showed (and supported with experiment) that this was completely wrong. He showed first of all, rest is an accident of reference frame. There is no absolute rest, so how could objects seek absolute rest? Secondly, he showed that uniform motion was an indication of NO net force acting on the object, not that there is a motion-sustaining force. >So it seems like you're regressing to Aristotle and have rejected Galileo. No way. Im saying that to change an objects direction, or speed. One needs an external force. Why? Because something must resist that change. Isnt that called inertia? The resistence to change. Didnt you say that Galileo said uniform motion was...no netforce acting on the object. So acceleration needs a net force, according to Galileo. But Why does it need force? Current theory cant explain why. So Im saying maybe its gravity. Because we know that one needs force to oppose a directional gravitational pull. Like earth. So if universal gravity is pulling evenly from all directions. Then to move any direction one needs net force in that direction . Inertia. And as per Galileo.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 16:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <wM-dnbv0j6oFBjfLnZ2dnUU7-cudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #548890 |
On 1/28/16 4:47 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Im saying that to change an objects direction, or speed. One needs
> an external force. Why? Because something must resist that change. Isnt that
> called inertia? The
Newton's Laws
p = mv
This equation says that the momentum of a body is the product of its
mass and its velocity. If this were a calculus based newsgroup, I would
be obliged to tell you that this equation involves a time derivative,
where Newton defined velocity v = dr/dt .
Newton's first law, also called the "law of inertia", states that body
at rest remains at rest and a body in motion continues to move at a
constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force.
Conservation of momentum, embodied in Newton's first law, is a
fundamental law of physics which states that the momentum of a system
is constant if there are no external forces acting on the system.
F = dp/dt (Newton wrote)
F = ma (Euler's version)
Either equation (after all they are equivalent) relates force, mass and
acceleration. Again, if this were a calculus based newsgroup, I would be
obliged to tell you that this equation involves a time derivative,
where the velocity a = dv/dt. In Euler's version on Newton's second
law, F is the applied force, m is the mass of the particle, and a is
the particle's acceleration.
F12 = -F21
Whenever a body exerts a force on another body, the latter exerts a
force of equal magnitude and opposite direction on the former. This is
known as the weak law of action and reaction.
Fgrav = G m1 m2 / r2 (5.2)
Gravity is the force exerted by all objects having mass on all other
objects having mass. Newton's Law of Gravitation says that the
gravitational force between to masses is proportional to their masses
and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
Newton's Law of Gravitation incorporates the inverse-square law,
which states that some physical quantity or strength is inversely
proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that
physical quantity. Gravity, light, and sound all obey the
inverse-square law.
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 17:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8e75i$jd5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #548890 |
On 1/28/2016 4:47 PM, jay moseley wrote: > No way. Im saying that to change an objects direction, or speed. One needs > an external force. Yes. > Why? Because something must resist that change. No. Nothing has to resist. What would you think would be the result if there were no resisting force? You'd STILL need an external force to change an object's direction or speed, because it sure wouldn't do it on its own. > Isnt that > called inertia? The resistence to change. That's a pretty vague definition. Seems like an ill-defined concept. Which is why I encouraged you to go see if you could find a good description of inertia in a physics book. > Didnt you say that Galileo said > uniform motion was...no netforce acting on the object. Yes. > So acceleration > needs a net force, according to Galileo. Yes. > But Why does it need force? Current > theory cant explain why. Because nature seems to show that's true. No force --> no acceleration. Net force --> acceleration. What more rationale do you need? > So Im saying maybe its gravity. Well ok, but that seems like a pretty easily eliminated idea. So why propose it? > Because we know > that one needs force to oppose a directional gravitational pull. Like earth. > So if universal gravity is pulling evenly from all directions. Then to move > any direction one needs net force in that direction . Inertia. And as per Galileo. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 01:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a7823b3d-c5df-419d-ba68-757b45b5f1f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548897 |
Odd wrote.. >> > So acceleration > needs a net force, according to Galileo. >Yes. >> But Why does it need force? Current > theory cant explain why. >Because nature seems to show that's true. No force --> no acceleration. Net force --> acceleration. What more rationale do you need? >> So Im saying maybe its gravity. >Well ok, but that seems like a pretty easily eliminated idea. So why propose it? First of all you havent eliminated it. In the non inertial frame it pulls on string. Which replaces the fictitious unexplainable centrifugal force. That then also being the good reason to propose it. And you havent eliminated it in the inertial frame. Because it pulls on the string when the string prevents the ball from going off in a straight line. It explains why you need a net force to accelerate or change direction of an object. Some force is resisting change of direction in an object. Something that is not explained currently.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 08:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8fs80$rrr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #549029 |
On 1/29/2016 3:13 AM, jay moseley wrote: > Odd wrote.. >>>> So acceleration > needs a net force, according to Galileo. > >> Yes. > >>> But Why does it need force? Current > theory cant explain why. > >> Because nature seems to show that's true. No force --> no acceleration. >> Net force --> acceleration. What more rationale do you need? > >>> So Im saying maybe its gravity. > >> Well ok, but that seems like a pretty easily eliminated idea. So why propose it? > > First of all you havent eliminated it. In the non inertial frame it pulls > on string. Which replaces the fictitious unexplainable centrifugal force. There is no need to replace something fictitious, is there? The force isn't there, nor is it needed. So why do you look for something to explain it or account for it? > That then also being the good reason to propose it. > And you havent eliminated it in the inertial frame. Because it > pulls on the string when the string prevents the ball from > going off in a straight line. No, gravity doesn't pull on the string. The BALL pulls on the string. You don't need anything else to account for the pull on the string. > It explains why you > need a net force to accelerate or change direction of an object. There is no need to explain that. > Some force is resisting change of direction in an object. No, it's not a force. You're not understanding this correctly. You didn't answer my previous question. Let's suppose that there IS NO resistance to a change in motion. Now you have such an object that is moving. What do you expect to happen to it, supposing that there is no resistance to change? > Something that is not explained currently. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 09:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8b15fdea-93c2-4720-b822-f313ae4cc573@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #549068 |
Odd wrote.. > You didn't answer my previous question. Let's suppose that there IS NO resistance to a change in motion. Now you have such an object that is moving. >What do you expect to happen to it, supposing that there is no resistance to change? I dont know. Thats a weird situation. How does one have a universe without gravity? Obviously you dont like the idea that resistence to change of motion can be explained by gravity. How would you explain it? Why do you need force to accelerate mass?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 12:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8g9lr$1kd2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #549114 |
On 1/29/2016 11:26 AM, jay moseley wrote: > Odd wrote.. >> You didn't answer my previous question. Let's suppose that there IS NO >> resistance to a change in motion. Now you have such an object that is >> moving. >What do you expect to happen to it, supposing that there is no >> resistance to change? > > I dont know. Thats a weird situation. How does one have a universe without > gravity? Drop the hypothesized connection for a bit, and just deal with resistance to change in motion. Without that resistance to change in motion, what would you EXPECT an object in motion to do? > > Obviously you dont like the idea that resistence to change of motion > can be explained by gravity. > How would you explain it? Why do you need force to accelerate mass? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 10:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b3cf36ff-b362-45ff-896d-23b023d532ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #549134 |
Odd wrote... > Drop the hypothesized connection for a bit, and just deal with resistance to change in motion. Without that resistance to change in motion, what would you >EXPECT an object in motion to do? Its not a hypothesized connection. Its the only viable explanation. But you want me to imagine a universe without resistance. Heres what should happen. Because gravity is electromagnetic and atoms are also standing waves of emr. When you drop resistance to motion, gravity and atoms also disappear and for all practical purposes so does the universe. Satisfied? Under your rules things may be different. Without resistance to motion its possible that velocity would no longer exist as it relies on resistance. If you didnt need force to move an object, I would guess that all mass being unrestrained would explode in all directions at once. Hey! Maybe thats what caused the big bang! A momentary dropping of resistance to change of motion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 14:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8gi75$4gj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #549170 |
On 1/29/2016 12:52 PM, jay moseley wrote: > Odd wrote... >> Drop the hypothesized connection for a bit, and just deal with resistance >> to change in motion. Without that resistance to change in motion, what >> would you >EXPECT an object in motion to do? > > Its not a hypothesized connection. Its the only viable explanation. Hold on, hoss. There's a big stretch between A POSSIBLE explanation, one that personally has occurred to you, and the ONLY VIABLE explanation. Do you want to step down from your delusion of grandeur on your own or do you need help coming down? > But you want me to imagine a universe without resistance. Heres > what should happen. Because gravity is electromagnetic and > atoms are also standing waves of emr. When you drop resistance > to motion, gravity and atoms also disappear and for all practical > purposes so does the universe. Satisfied? I asked you to drop the connection between resistance to motion and gravity. You did not. You imagined a world without gravity and electromagnetism, not a world without resistance to motion. Try harder, I'm sure you can pry your mind loose from the connection. > > Under your rules things may be different. Without resistance > to motion its possible that velocity would no longer exist as > it relies on resistance. What? Velocity relies on resistance? How so? > If you didnt need force to move an object, > I would guess that all mass being unrestrained would explode in > all directions at once. Now, is that just a GUESS or is that something that is the ONLY VIABLE scenario that would happen? LOL. > Hey! Maybe thats what caused the big bang! > A momentary dropping of resistance to change of motion. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 07:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <88aba83b-034f-4b99-8758-eefda0f6cb9e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #549207 |
Odd wrote... >> Its not a hypothesized connection. Its the only viable explanation. >Hold on, hoss. There's a big stretch between A POSSIBLE explanation, one that personally has occurred to you, and the ONLY VIABLE explanation. Do you >want to step down from your delusion of grandeur on your own or do you need help coming down? Its the only viable explanation. Unless you prefer fictituous unexplained magic. Tell me what causes resistance to change? And which book did you read your preferred explanation in? Alice in Wonderland, or Through the Looking Glass. >> But you want me to imagine a universe without resistance. Heres > what should happen. Because gravity is electromagnetic and > atoms are also standing >>waves of emr. When you drop resistance > to motion, gravity and atoms also disappear and for all practical > purposes so does the universe. Satisfied? >I asked you to drop the connection between resistance to motion and gravity. You did not. You imagined a world without gravity and electromagnetism, not >a world without resistance to motion. Try harder, I'm sure you can pry your mind loose from the connection. Tell you what. You give me a viable alternative explanation for what causes resistance to change. And Ill tell you what happens if you take it away >> > Under your rules things may be different. Without resistance > to motion its possible that velocity would no longer exist as > it relies on resistance. >What? Velocity relies on resistance? How so? How would you define force if there were no resistance? >> If you didnt need force to move an object, > I would guess that all mass being unrestrained would explode in > all directions at once. >Now, is that just a GUESS or is that something that is the ONLY VIABLE scenario that would happen? LOL. What? Are you saying the BBT is a joke? How dare you. Im reporting you for inflammatory anti religious hate mongering.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 13:58 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8lp1t$1co5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #549369 |
On 1/30/2016 9:37 AM, jay moseley wrote: > Odd wrote... >>> Its not a hypothesized connection. Its the only viable explanation. > >> Hold on, hoss. There's a big stretch between A POSSIBLE explanation, one >> that personally has occurred to you, and the ONLY VIABLE explanation. Do you >>want to step down from your delusion of grandeur on your own or do you need help coming down? > > Its the only viable explanation. Unless you prefer fictituous unexplained > magic. Sorry, but no. You can't legitimately say, "This explanation is the only one I can think of, and so all the others are magic!" Do you listen to yourself sometimes? Like, when you talk? > Tell me what causes resistance to change? And which book > did you read your preferred explanation in? Alice in Wonderland, or > Through the Looking Glass. A physics book. You might want to try one. (Rest of post unread.) -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web