Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:34:51 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Cliff wrote:


You think that "inertia" is a "new idea"? You'll probably not find much
Aether or Phlogiston either.

"Newton's first law contrasts sharply with the view of Aristotle, who
maintained (incorrectly) that the natural state of an object was to be at rest?"

[
Aristotle's "Mover" Reborn As Newton's "Inertia"
To Aristotle, a uniformly moving object's motion was maintained by the
presence of a "mover". But Galileo revealed that since it takes a force to
change a uniformly moving object's motion, when such a force is absent, no
change can possibly occur to the object's uniform motion. No "mover" required.
Then Newton wrote in Definition IV that "a body maintains every new state" (of
motion) "it acquires by its inertia only." Here Newton effectively voided
Galileo's logical understanding of an object's uniform motion, as being a
causeless default state of motion. Instead Newton's "inertia", like Aristotle's
"mover" gave the general audience something acceptable to fill the role of
"maintaining" an object's uniform motion when no such role existed.

A Cause For Uniform Motion Is Expected
For 16 centuries, Aristotle's "mover" satisfied the general need for a
cause to explain uniform motion. Clearly, Galileo's causeless understanding of
uniform motion failed to satisfy this need. But then Newton's "inertia" cause
was readily accepted as representing the expected answer. Credit goes to Galileo
for recognizing the causeless truth. With the demise of Aristotle's "mover" and
now Newton's "inertia", can we resist inventing yet a third imaginary "cause"
solely to satisfy the illogical but enduring general need for one?
]

[
inertia
Inertia is the tendency of a body to remain in a state of rest or of uniform
motion unless acted upon by an external force.

**Momentum & the conservation laws.**

When objects want to keep doing what they are already doing. For example, If
they are resting, they want to continue resting..

**"Want" == old animistic nun & Aristotle stuff ... it just might decide to
walk off, right?**

The abiliy of an object to resist a change in motion.( Resists force).

**No "ability* is needed .... you just have momentum, mass & the conservation
laws.**

The tendency of an object to resist change in its motion. Every object continues
in its state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line unless an external
force is applied on it to change its speed or direction.. Inertia is the
tendency of a moving object to keep moving the same way, unless something
interferes. Inertia is also the tendency of a still object to stay still, unless
something interferes. .

**IOW It does nothing and claiming it exists does nothing unless you suspect
that the mass would otherwise just decide to go munch on your carpet without it.
Hence it cannot properly be said to exist.**

Inertia is a fundamental property of matter directly related to the mass of an
object,

**That's mass.**

so all matter has inertia. It is not related to where the matter is.. Inertia is
really nothing at all.

** "Inertia is really nothing at all." !!! **

It was invented as the supposed cause of the non-accelerating state of rest /
uniform motion. But then everyone knows that rest / uniform motion is the
default, causeless state that automatically occurs when accelerational forces
become absent. Inertia certainly is not a thing that "resists" acceleration
prior to Newton's LAW I taking effect.

** "Inertia is really nothing at all." !!! **

Hold out a stone and then release it. Acceleration of the stone toward Earth is
immediate. No "resistance", no hesitation, no "inertia". . Inertia can be
considered as that property of mass that conserves momentum.

** Mass. Momentum. Conservation laws. NO pecks of "inertia".**

It is directly related to mass by F=dP/dt where P is the momentum an F is an
externally applied force..
]

F is force, another of those pesky vector things.
Comments delimited by "**" were added by yours truely <G>.
"Inertia" would not be in any way operant.
Do NOT claim to multiply the number of independant variables. "Inertia" is
not one of them.

Is this sinking in yet? ANY OF IT?

I sometimes save responses til Thurs or Fri just for you <G>.

Well, I can only estimate how much my responses give your life
meaning. <g>

<Sheesh ... and again I'm a few days late ....>

so this is not a complete response to
your post, just a short comment. Your statements are guesses &
conjecture

Nope. Not at all.

Of course many of your statements are guesses, conjecture, or a result
of faulty logic. You sure didn't learn that momentum holds a stationary
object in its place in any physics class or textbook.

Naturally not.
But I see much more of your confusion (and the lint's).
Momentum is not a force. It is a vector ..... some forces are vector
forces but momentum is not a force.

That's why you
are unable to support your skewed interpretation of momentum with any
credible physics sites

Their authors & I seem to have secret (from the Lint & you)
knowledge.

and therefor have to resort to demeaning
innuendo, insults, and misrepresentation in the hope of distracting
people from noticing that you are unable to support your guesses with
facts/evidence.

Bad nuns. Bad.

unsupported by any outside evidence, as such they carry
little to no weight. Please re-respond with support for your "opinions"
from credible physics sites, texts, etc.

I don't need any nuns or Aristotle to copy & paste from, sorry.

You NEED to support your points with accurate information

I did. Many times. But the magical Lint remains confused.

if you wish
to attain a modicum of credibility and be taken seriously.

Nuns, Aristotle, Plato & the pope are not good sources it seems.

Repeating WAG's doesn't really
go very far to validate your points.

Try rereading & thinking instead <g>.

Let's just take a look at an example of YOUR alleged "thinking". You
said:

"Hold out a stone and then release it. Acceleration of the stone toward Earth is
immediate. No "resistance", no hesitation, no "inertia". .

If you release a stone, the acceleration of the stone toward the Earth
is *NOT* immediate. Items fall at the rate of 32' per second, per
second. THAT's hardly instantaneous or immediate, and the time taken to
overcome the object's inertia happens to be 32' per second within the
Earth's gravitational field. If the object had NO inertia it would drop
immediately (barring air resistance), probably near light speed, but
such is NOT the case. So even your little logical exercise here is
seriously flawed and actually SUPPORTS the concept of inertia. In fact,
your exercise is a demonstrative example of that "Confirmation Bias"
that started this thread, where you are trying interpret things NOT from
an objective point of view, but from preconceived notions that in this
case just happen to be in error. LOL

No pecks of "inertia" <g>.

I think I've sufficiently demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, with
excerpts from 7 various physics sites the other day, that the science
community believes that mass is the measure of inertia.

Nope. Mass is just mass.
You don't *need* to make any claims of "inertia" as another
independant variable.

The momentum remains *unchanged* unless momentum
is transfed. It is *conserved* (per Newton).

Cause & effect.
No effect so you need no cause ("inertia") for nothing to
happen.
Other forms of claims causes lacking any effects are fairly
common (see nuns, Plato, Aristotle, etc.) in the "thinking"
& claims of some (see "Lint"). This is not good but you
are badly infected.
If thse claimed "causes" were to exist you could not
tell one from another as none have any effects.
IOW They would all be the same non-existant cause <G>.

So until you
can support your conjecture that "there are no pecks of inertia"

How odd that you can find the noise with so many Googe searches but
no pecks of it. Nor can you respond to those few specific questions
I asked you before it seems.
Google confusion? Or just bad nuns again?

I will
have to conclude that your comments are little more than a unsupported
guesses.

IOW You still don't know what any of this is about no matter how many
Google hits you can get.

And no matter how many times you repeat it, it's not going to
suddenly become true.

What?
It's clear you don't begin to grasp much.

This is not one of your political arguments
where simple rhetoric reigns supreme.

BS. Go find those "WMDs".

In science, FACTS and EVIDENCE
are the primary determining factors,

Like all those pecks of "inertia" you so easily found?

and so far, you have not presented
any facts OR evidence, just opinions, guesses, and conjecture.

But if you could find a quote from Aristotle or a Pope ...
Have I mentioned bad nuns?

How many times have I mentioned the influence the Catholics
have had on you & your poor thinking & claims? You were well
brainswashed & indoctrinated it seems.

Let's do a little thought experiment to try and clarify this issue.
Say we have a stationary bowling ball that masses 5 kilos, it therefore
has 5 kilos worth of inertia holding it in place.

IT HAS NO SUCH THING !!!
YOU JUST MADE ANOTHER DUMB ASSUMPTION AS YOUR CONCLUSION.
IT NEEDS NO SUCH TO DO NOTHING !!!

CAUSE & EFFECT. NO EFFECT DOES NOT NEED A CAUSE !!!

(Remember now, mass
is the MEASURE of inertia)

Nope. Mass is just mass.
You need no circular "causes" & noises.

Now we have a second bowling ball that masses the same 5 kilos, but it
is rolling across a carpet losing velocity as it rolls to the friction
of the carpet and gravity. All momentum measurements can be done at the
momentum area of the HyperPhysics site automatically, just plug in the
data. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

It first rolls at 2 meters per second which equals a momentum of 10 kg
m/s. (p=m*v) To be complete and include your precious vectors, let's
just say the ball is rolling due East.

And what are it's North/South & Up/Down vector components?

Then it's velocity slows down to 1 meter per sec. equaling a momentum
of 5 kg m/s.

Where did the rest of the momentum vanish to?

It slows down further to .5 meter per sec. equaling a momentum of 2.5
kg m/s.

Where did the rest of the momentum vanish to?

And further slows down to .1 meter per sec. equaling a momentum of .5
kg m/s.
Until it finally stops at a velocity of 0 meters per sec. equaling a
momentum of O kg m/s.

OOPS .... YOU JUST LOST YOUR VECTOR SYSTEM AGAIN AND CONFUSED
IT ALL WITH A SCALAR !!

Where did the rest of the momentum vanish to?

Do you see the pattern here? As the moving bowling ball slows down
it's momentum becomes less

It's *scalar magnitude* gets smaller.

and less until it reaches ZERO where there is
no more momentum within the reference frame considered

It's *scalar magnitude* may become zero.

(yes, yes, the
scalar measurement of momentum - but that's really all we're concerned
with here since a zero vector adds no measurable momentum to the
object).

Adding momentum would make it move, right? LOL ...
And you cannot add momentum (a vector) to a scaler
(see your claims).

YOU CANNOT ADD SCALARS & VECTORS !!!

So the momentum of a object drops as the velocity drops, the
object has less and less momentum until it stops moving completely and
the momentum drops to ZERO.

BS. You keep confusing scalars with vectors.

And at ZERO momentum there is no momentum
left over to "Hold it in place"

Momentum IS NOT A FORCE.
A NON-MOVING OBJECT NEEDS NOTHING TO HOLD IT IN PLACE --
IT WOULD NEED SOMETING TO CAUSE IT TO MOVE !!!!

See my prior posts on bad nuns & animism.
See Newton's laws.
AND IT HAS A MOMENTUM VECTOR EVEN WHEN NOT MOVING.
IT'S JUST THAT THE SCALAR VALUES OF THE VECTOR'S COEFICIENTS
MAY BE ZERO IN THAT COORDINATE SYSTEM.

as your conceptual boo-boo claimed.
BUT, its not free to float off to who knows where, since it STILL has 5
kg worth of INERTIA holding it in place.

IT HAS NO SUCH THING !!!
YOU JUST MADE ANOTHER DUMB ASSUMPTION AS YOUR CONCLUSION.
IT NEEDS NO SUCH TO DO NOTHING !!!

CAUSE & EFFECT. NO EFFECT DOES NOT NEED A CAUSE !!!
Nor is momentum a force to "hold it in place" & keep it from
wanering about at random eating your carpet.

See how simple all that is when you focus just on the pertinent issues,
and don't try to obfuscate matters with external/irrelevant comments.

Such as knowing what this is about ....
HTH
--
Cliff
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... change can possibly occur to the object's uniform motion. ... Instead Newton's "inertia", like Aristotle's ... considered as that property of mass that conserves momentum. ... it would start to gain momentum from it's former zero momentum ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... IF it moved it would need an alteration in it's momentum, ... It's the same mass in any case. ... You are now confusing "inertia" with things like velocity, ... change can possibly occur to the object's uniform motion. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... that inertia doesn't exist, ... I said that time is one & mass might be. ... That seems to be about the conservation of momentum. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • 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: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... But YOU can find no pecks of inertia. ... Nor do you begin to grasp vectors or momentum it seems. ... Mass is the measure of mass, ... change can possibly occur to the object's uniform motion. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)