Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 02:36:38 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Cliff wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 01:42:40 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:57:29 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

LOL *I'm* not the one who just confused inertia with momentum for all
of usenet to see.

But YOU can find no pecks of inertia.

Why don't you tell us *in your own words* what
the lint told you it is? And how to measure it ....

You can find no pecks of "inertia" it seems.


Cliff:

I guess we'll have to go through this exercise one more time.

Why? You don't seem to grasp any of it at all.
Did you not understand one word of my last post on the topic?


Here are what a number of physics sites have to say about the
measurement of inertia:

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

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

"Mass." "Of an object."

a
numerical measure of its inertia;

Just mass. You can find no pecks of "inertia".

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

Sort of like mass?

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

===========================================================================
http://www.eng.auburn.edu/users/flowegt/me232/class_problems/angmass.html

Mass is the quantification of inertia. Mass measures the resistance of
an object to a change in its state of linear motion. Thus mass measures
the linear inertia of an object.

HINT: Clueless students think that they know about "inertia" but not Physics.
No "inertia".

And I have several times asked you to tell *in your own words* what
*you* think "inertia" is.
You seem to be having problems <G>.
Words & lint again, right?

See above? It says "linear inertia" there but above that it says that "mass
.... numerical measure of its inertia".

Which is whch? LOL ....

Puzzle for BB:
Which has the most "inertia":
A) A 2 ton car sitting still in the parking lot.
B) A 2 ton car going West at 60 MPH.
C) A 2 ton car going North at 120 MPH.

Why?

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

===========================================================================
http://www.jracademy.com/~mbasteaf/newton/glossary.html

Inertia
The resistance of an object to change velocity. Mass is a measure of
inertia.

Delta P = P1-P2.
All 3 are vector quantities.

P4= (10*m*x + 0*m*y + 5*m*z) kg-m/sec

What is the total "inertia"?
What is the mass in y?

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

===========================================================================
http://mcdonaldobservatory.org/research/glossary/index.php?sort=a&f=M&l=M

Mass
The amount of matter content of an object

Mass is mass.

and a physical measure of
inertia.

Mass is mass.
It has no pecks of "inertia".

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

===========================================================================
http://www.physlink.com/Education/askExperts/ae321.cfm

That resistance to being moved is inertia, and mass measures how much
inertia an object has.

Try to define & measure this "resistance" <G>.

So if you want "pecks" of inertia, you just measure the mass.

This measurement would just tell how much mass, right?
And we know that mass is mass.

Where did your "inertia" go off to?

This is
not a difficult concept for most to absorb, Mr. Cliff Cranus.

Still a few pecks short?

Do facts and information from credible physics sites somehow threaten
(shall we be kind and just say), your out of the mainstream science
community's interpretation of various physical phenomena?

WHAT "physical phenomena"??

Why, momentum & inertia; the subject of this little subthread.

What does "inertia" have to do with momentum? Or vectors?
Is your "peck of inertia" a vector quantity (see "linear inertia"
above)?

Silly Wabbit, mass IS the measure of inertia

Mass is the measure of mass, BB. Not much else.

See above.

Mass is mass. P=m*v, E=m*v*v/2 (per Newton), etc.
Where is your peck of "inertia"?
E=m*c*c per Einstein.
Where is your peck of "inertia"?
Photons have momentum.
Where is your peck of "inertia"?

Are you now trying again to claim that mass is "inertia"?

"Again"? That's not something I would have said. Mass & inertia are
closely interrelated but not identical. Inertia is a property of mass,
but mass has properties that are not associated with inertia, such as
the tendency of mass to attract other mass. Inertia does not share that
property with mass.

How would you know that as you have yet to find any pecks of "inertia"?

Worth a repost:

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.

"Inertia" is just an OLD neoplatonic concept. It went out when Newton
came in, except in phrases that harken back. It does not seem to exist as a
thing or separate property (mass does as do the conservation & other laws)
no matter how many bad/poorly done or written "science" sites you can find
with Google.

Galileo sort of came up with "inertia". Prior to that many thought (what's
common sense for, anyway?) you needed a force to keep an object in motion.

You don't. Nor do you need Galileo's "inertia" **excuse** to keep it in
motion.

You just need a LACK of anything else that would alter it's momentum.

You don't need to claim anything at all. No animism, no Aristotle, no
bad nuns, no "inertia" ... it just *remains unchanged* unless something
alters it's momentum.
It takes something to change it. NOT to keep it from changing.

SEE?

Is this sinking in yet? ANY of it?

NOW READ IT ALL AGAIN.

Worst case of bad nuns ... and still no pecks of "inertia" <VBG>.
--
Cliff
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... Newton's first law is about momentum & ... NOW you are claiming that your pecks of "inertia" are about forces? ... You said before that "inertia is the measure of mass", ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... added, said that mass ... The force of the conservation laws, ... Found any pecks of "inertia" lately? ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: The Way of the KOOK Was: Looking like wwIII
    ... Those pecks of "inertia" should be pretty easy for you to ... Kilograms are a measure of mass, ... An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: The Relativity of Motion in Space
    ... define motion relative to the inertia phenomena. ... space" If we imagine the universe in a perpetual ... Let us assume that inertial mass and gravitational mass ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... Why is Newton's "First Law" about motion? ... Inertia is not measured directly; ... Mass is mass. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)