Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert



Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 03:06:04 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



*I'm* not the one who keeps mentioning Aristotle and Nuns.

Cliff:

<snip 20 lines of Aristotle and nunsense> (a combination or nonsense and
nuns). LOL


Like I said in my other post, we've covered this ground for years and
you have yet to produce any credible physics sites that agree with you
that inertia doesn't exist,

I don't need to.

Translation: "I can't find ANY credible physics sites that state that
inertia doesn't exist."

I don't need to.

It wouldn't be because you can't, would it? LMAO!


I'm not the one who thinks time and mass are vector quantities.

I said that time is one & mass might be.

OK, I stand corrected. One definitely conceptual boo-boo and one MIGHT
be boo-boo.


Kick that bowling ball with your bare toes, THEN come back and talk to
me about inertia having no effects.

WHAT "inertia"?

The inertia that's going to bruise your toes when you kick that
stationary bowling ball.

You just have what happens naturally with momentum, energy &
conservation laws. Nothing more nor less.

There you go again, attributing a stationary bowling ball with
momentum. It has ZERO momentum, and ZERO kinetic energy since it's NOT
MOVING. Your precious zero vector notwithstanding.


I note that you could not respond on the following:

You want others to respond to your nunsense questions but you never
respond to the direct questions asked by others? What a taaruule.

[
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?
]

Since mass is the measure of inertia and the mass doesn't appreciably
change with movement (until you get to relativistic speeds) the inertia
would be the same in all the above cases. Remember, inertia is NOT
momentum.


Or:
[
Assume V = (10*x + 0*y +0*z) (m/s)
Are you claiming that ( 0*y +0*z) (m/s) does not exist?
]

The velocity is positive 10 meters per second in the x axis. There is
zero velocity in the y and z axes, so velocity may as well not exist in
those axes, within that particular reference frame.


Or:
[
3 apples - 3 apples + 5 pears - 5 pears = 0 apples + 0 pears.
This is not the same as "If 0 apples then 0 grapes".
Per logic in Lintland (and you) P = m*v (P & v vectors)
Let's expand that to P= m*(A*x + B*y + C*z) where x, y & z
are unit vectors and scalars A, B & C have units of distance (a scalar)/time.
Then P = m*A*x + m*B*y + m*C*z.
YOU are claiming that IF A = B = C and all have a magnitude of 0
then P vanishes and "inertia" is made by magic.
But, as 0*m could also be said to be 0 in Lintland, you SHOULD
be claiming that the mass vanished, right?
]

If A, B, and C all have a magnitude of zero then the object has NO
velocity and it's displacement/time is ZERO so the momentum of the
object is ZERO. Which effectively means the object is stationary within
the reference frame considered. You can SAY the object has momentum but
it happens to be ZERO. Just as you can SAY it has a vector but it would
be a ZERO vector pointing NOWHERE.



This seems pretty simple.
And masses always have momentum vectors in ALL referance
frames.

And which direction does a stationary object's ZERO vector point?

What vector system are you using?
P remains a vector quantity in it.

And which direction does a ZERO vector point, eh?


Yeah
a stationary object has momentum; ZERO momentum. LMAO!

To REPEAT: Only it's scalar magnitude is zero (and it still has
some units).

Yeah. ZERO vector units, which way to they point? LOL


Uh oh, you must have it really bad for those nuns.

They've clearly done a lot of damage.

Sounds like more nunsense to me. <g>


Go reread my posts of Saturday/Sunday <G>. Several times. Slowly.

RE-read YOUR posts? Why? Is there going to be a test on Cliffphysics?

You could do (and clearly have) a lot worse <g>.

I doubt it.


BTW, Many use "inertia" as another term for momentum ... sort of an
historical thing. So your claims about it being mass without momentum
are rather funny indeed.


"Many" think the world is flat, so what?
"Some" even think time is a vector, "some" think that momentum *FORCES*
an object to remain stationary, "some" think the conservation laws can't
be violated, even in open systems. LOL

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
.

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
    ... that inertia doesn't exist, ... OR that momentum *FORCES* an object to remain in place, ... The other two vectors were zero, so have zero affect on the momentum. ... All of the conservation laws still apply, ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... that inertia doesn't exist, ... from nuns!!) ... That would be the result of a force demonstrating yet again that momentum & ... Zero is a number too. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: Mori Seki SL1 NC lathe programming
    ... How could you possibly calculate the "momentum" of an object if you ... don't have the specific mass OF that object. ... Only it's scalar absolute value is zero. ... Inertia isn't mass, ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: OT The Politcal Brain - Confirmation bias
    ... Cliff wrote: ... Scalar multiplication with the zero vector yields the zero vector: ... magnitude of zero momentum units. ... mass and zero velocity - how much momentum does it possess? ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)