Re: Need HELP

Cliff,

You don't know the difference between clockwise and counter clockwise
nor can you do basic math in a profession you represent yourself as an
expert and now your representing yourself as what exactly here?

Just more fraudulent BS from you. You can't do basic calculations and
here you are trying to represent yourself as a credible theorist?

LOL,,,,,,,what a crock. Is there anyone who buys into your false
facade?
Tom

Cliff wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:33:10 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 19:08:39 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

BTW, Found that peck of inertia yet?

Mass is the numerical measure of inertia. Found a peck of momentum in
that stationary bowling ball sitting on your carpet, within the
reference frame of your living room? LOL

The momentum vector of such is quite well defined.

Cliff:

And which direction does the momentum vector (or velocity vector),
point when the object in question is STATIONARY and has zero velocity
and therefor zero momentum within the reference frame considered, eh?
LOL

Only the magnitude (a scalar) may be zero, BB.
The momentum vector is still there. it did not suddenly become zero apples
in Lintland.
Nor should you forget that all possible reference frames exist at the same
time and any statement such as what you want to claim needs to be true in all
of them at the same time.

NOW you are claiming that mass = "inertia".

Nope.

You wrote "Mass is the numerical measure of inertia."

I recently told you in another thread that mass is NOT inertia.

You wrote "Mass is the numerical measure of inertia."
So .... where's that peck of inertia?

But
you don't seem to listen/remember/understand very well, or else you're
just playing at being obtuse for some obfuscating trolling effect.
Here, let me try to help you out once again with information from some
physics sites:

===============================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

Thus, "mass is the quantitative or numerical measure of body's inertia,
that is of
its resistance to being accelerated".


Don't always trust Wick.
Mass is mass.
Define "resistance" in this context <VBG>.

===============================================================

===============================================================
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mass.html#mas

The mass of an object is a fundamental property of the object;

Mass is mass. What can I say?

a numerical measure of its inertia;

Wht units do they use for this "inertia"?

a fundamental measure of the amount of
matter in the object.

Sort of like mass. I see. They have two terms but don't know which is which
yet you claim that it ony has "inertia" of it's not moving in YOUR referance
frame (see stuck rock). Hence you are contradicting even these copied claims
(which I doubt you understand or you could use your own words for a change).

===============================================================

I think it would be informative (and to counter some of your
pseudoscientific nonsense), to post a little background on inertia for
those interested: (All 3 of those people?) LOL


===============================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental laws of classical
physics which are used to describe the motion of matter and how it is
affected by applied forces. The concept of inertia is today most
commonly defined using Isaac Newton's First Law of Motion, which states:

Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving
uniformly straight ahead, except insofar as it is compelled to change
its state by
forces impressed. [Cohen & Whitman 1999 translation]

Conservation of energy & momentum. Lacking such changes it does
not change -- it NEEDS no such thing as "inertia" to NOT change.
The tacit assumption is an animistic one that lacking such a "force"it would
just wander about as it pleases, perhaps eating grass.
You must consider Newton's time... this was really all against the church
& Aristotle's teachings and very risque stuff for it's day, what with witches
abounding & whatnot.
IIRC Others had been threatened with prison, death and some excommunicated
for similar ....

Now, about your nuns & Aristotle ....

Albert Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, as proposed in his 1905
paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," built on the
understanding of inertia and inertial reference frames developed by
Galileo and Newton.

These are, in this context, specialized *phrases*, not pecks of "inertia".

While this revolutionary theory did significantly
change the meaning of many Newtonian concepts such as mass, energy, and
distance, Einstein's concept of inertia remained unchanged from Newton's
original meaning (in fact the entire theory was based on Newton's
definition of inertia).

We have mass by the ton & the kilogram.
Where is your peck of "inertia"?

Another profound, perhaps the most well-known, conclusion of the theory
of Special Relativity was that energy and mass are not separate things,
but are, in fact, interchangeable. This new relationship, however, also
carried with it new implications for the concept of inertia. The logical
conclusion of Special Relativity was that if mass exhibits the principle
of inertia, then inertia must also apply to energy as well. This theory,
and subsequent experiments confirming some of its conclusions, have also
served to radically expand the definition of inertia in some contexts to
apply to a much wider context including energy as well as matter.

Energy ==> Photons (which have *momentum*).

=================================================================

What did you say the title was of your published scientific paper that
refutes the classical physics of Galileo & Newton as well as Einstein's
Special Relativity? LMAO!

Where's your peck of "inertia"?
I still don't think you are grasping much of this.
Too much Google with copy & paste?
--
Cliff

.

Relevant Pages

  • Art_2 : Inertial Property of All Forms of Energy
    ... Inertia is an inherent property of matter and mass is the ... Inertia must be an inherent property of all forms of energy, ... the kinetic energy of this particle P will ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... And that says nothing at all about pecks of "inertia". ... Newton's first law is the definition of the principle of inertia, ... You said before that "inertia is the measure of mass", ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: Is spacetime curvature the source of inertia?
    ... "Inertia" is not a property at all, ... inertia, it has mass. ... "Where is the energy of a bullet stored?". ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Fusible Alloy Wager - Was Re: cerrobend holding power
    ... Force is not energy, BB. ... You've been confusing momentum with inertia for years. ... Momentum is mass times velocity. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: OT...Big Bang?
    ... that is the force of gravity. ... then he would have to tie his string one third of the ... Inertia at the ends prevents them from moving at the same time. ... Inertial mass is a measurement of mass, ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)