Darby
Timekeeper
No - you use your equation and set W=0 and plug and chug.
Temporal Divergence Meter
- Thread starter Designer2
- Start date
No - you use your equation and set W=0 and plug and chug.
Robot
Timekeeper
JDT
Timekeeper
I have already explained it in terms of mathematics and physics. You can check the post that the arrogant admins decided to move because of their know-it-all posterity.
Einstein
Timekeeper
The equation was meant for inertial accelerations only. Since the equation is a physical description of an inertial acceleration.That was my whole point for using the physical observation to construct the equation. Now you are restricted to only using an inertial weight vector. Inertial weight only exists in the presence of an inertial acceleration. A gravitational acceleration has no weight vector associated with it.
There is no inertial weight vector in a gravitational freefall. Since weightlessness is property of gravitational freefall, you can't even use mass in a calculation. If you do, then the product of mass times acceleration is weight. But the facts show no weight is present. Maybe it's just a direct observation that gravitational accelerations are also mass-less.
This goes in the direction of "Where does all the energy come from, if no weight or mass is present during a gravitational collision?" I think that's a good question. I also think it's time scientists stop making assumptions, and start finding facts instead.
JDT
Timekeeper
>
>I also think it's time scientists stop making assumptions, and start finding facts instead.
Someone deserves a nobel prize in being fantastic. Scientists assume so much that it is absurd; they intentionally squander free-thinkers just because ideas contradict what they "know" to be true.
>Why not try using facts instead. At least your arguments would then have a solid foundation to stand on.
I have used facts in my arguments. I believe you would really enjoy my post if you gave it a try, Einstein.
>I also think it's time scientists stop making assumptions, and start finding facts instead.
Someone deserves a nobel prize in being fantastic. Scientists assume so much that it is absurd; they intentionally squander free-thinkers just because ideas contradict what they "know" to be true.
>Why not try using facts instead. At least your arguments would then have a solid foundation to stand on.
I have used facts in my arguments. I believe you would really enjoy my post if you gave it a try, Einstein.
JDT
Timekeeper
Science doesn't start with assumptions. Science works off of simple axioms; like Euclid's Elements explains.
Science works with questions and rigorous testing under controlled circumstances.
JDT
Timekeeper
Newtonian mechanics deals with the macroscopic. Gravity exists on the macroscopic and microscopic because "the string" is a vibration with a frame of reference to all other points in the system.
Balls don't want. The ball had a tangential force applied to it. If you eliminate the circular view of this rotation, you would see that it is the whole system itself that has NO force applied to it, and because of your frame of reference, YOU are applying centrifugal force to make sense of this mechanic.
>That force is continually vector varying 360 degrees around the center of rotation. Pick the release point and you can a release in the direction of your choice.
No, a ball in orbit has no force acting on it, the net force is ZERO. The force of orbit and gravity is PURELY DIRECTIONAL; it is RELATIVE to the frame of reference and acts on BOTH objects in equivalence.
Centrifugal force is SPECIFIC ONLY TO DESCRIPTION OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS, it is NOT REAL, it is only to illustrate the angular difference between different points of observation because the distance between the objects is FIXED.
Robot
Timekeeper
Many Physics models are based on assumptions, or models that are known to be wrong until something better comes along.
The first thing Murray Gel-Mann said when he was told he won the Nobel for Quark theory was "Now people are talking about Quarks as if they actually exist". He developed a functional model that he "assumed" existed/was correct.
100 years ago it was "assumed" Ohms law was a "law". That "law" is not applicable to superconductivity.
JDT
Timekeeper
Any law that describes a generalization will always be broken under extreme circumstances.
Problem of induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Science doesn't work off of assumptions. Models are made as hypothetical systems and then tested.
Einstein
Timekeeper
JDT
I'm not a John Titor believer. Actually as I grow older, there is less and less to actually put in the belief category.
Observations show it is real. And you can measure it too. But if you never stepped outside a classroom to do an experiment or two, you would be biased into believing it was fictional, based on what we are taught in school.
Centrifugal force is always present in conjunction with an inertial force which pushes an object in a circular path. As long as the radius doesn't change for that circular path, the centrifugal force has no acceleration vector associated with it. Not so with the inertial force. Which has both an acceleration vector and an opposed weight vector. But those are the actual physical facts of our reality. If you want the math for rotational dynamics, you are better off constructing it yourself.
I'm not a John Titor believer. Actually as I grow older, there is less and less to actually put in the belief category.
Observations show it is real. And you can measure it too. But if you never stepped outside a classroom to do an experiment or two, you would be biased into believing it was fictional, based on what we are taught in school.
Centrifugal force is always present in conjunction with an inertial force which pushes an object in a circular path. As long as the radius doesn't change for that circular path, the centrifugal force has no acceleration vector associated with it. Not so with the inertial force. Which has both an acceleration vector and an opposed weight vector. But those are the actual physical facts of our reality. If you want the math for rotational dynamics, you are better off constructing it yourself.
JDT
Timekeeper
>Observations show it is real
It is real from the point of observation; in basic terms of physics it is a fictitious force. Depending on frame of reference, you can construct several fictitious forces to illustrate a change in rotational dynamics, and then observe them.
Non-Euclidean geometry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Edit:
Also:
Fictitious force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
JDT
Timekeeper
I'm the fence itself.
JDT
Timekeeper
No, everyone is on my side, and I'm on everyone's side.
Because I'm the fence itself. I bow to the great spirit, and dance with my relatives and loved ones. We're all relatives.
Because it's all relative, you see. Anyone can identify a rainbow. An arch can only be constructed from four points.
You don't even believe in John Titor, or time travel, and yet you are currently time travelling; unaware of the circuitry of your own consciousness and the circuitry of the world around you.
You should be less concerned with sides and more concerned with how you can help make the world a better place.
E=MC^2; don't you know how the focus and directrix work for quadratics?
Look at my avatar, maybe you'll see what I'm getting at.
If you focus on sides and facts then you'll make the same mistakes as the people you loathe.
The key is to be open-minded, not separate.
Einstein
Timekeeper
JDT
You would be surprised at how open minded I really am. But being open minded doesn't require me to believe everything I come across.
To me the equation E=MC^2 appears to be fiction as well. It doesn't work in experimental analysis. I've never seen anyone verify or prove it. Just looks like propaganda to me.
Oh, and another thing. If you want me to look at your math. You need to clarify it with the missing information needed to understand what all the math symbols stand for. In addition you also need to state clearly what you are trying to establish with the math. Right now as stated it just looks like meaningless mathematical jargon.
You would be surprised at how open minded I really am. But being open minded doesn't require me to believe everything I come across.
To me the equation E=MC^2 appears to be fiction as well. It doesn't work in experimental analysis. I've never seen anyone verify or prove it. Just looks like propaganda to me.
Oh, and another thing. If you want me to look at your math. You need to clarify it with the missing information needed to understand what all the math symbols stand for. In addition you also need to state clearly what you are trying to establish with the math. Right now as stated it just looks like meaningless mathematical jargon.
Similar threads
