Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:01:15 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



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

Where else might you be getting your confusion & misinformation from?
I doubt that the lint could do it all by it's lonesome.

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!

This is just too basic ... <G>.

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.

You do persist in your denials & confusions <shrug>.
Try taking some classes in a few subjects some day (but no more
from nuns!!) Or thinking instead of looking for some "authority" such as
Aristotle or a gaggle of nuns to tell you what to copy & post.

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.

That would be the result of a force demonstrating yet again that momentum &
energy are conserved & that momentum is a vector quantity.

You don't get ANY of this, do you?

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.

In all coordinate systems.

It has ZERO momentum,

It's momentum *in that specific coordinate system at that time*
may have zero as scalar coeffecients to some vector components.
In others it would have others.

BTW, Zero is a number too.

and ZERO kinetic energy since it's NOT
MOVING.

Only in that specific coordinate system at that time.

If you were running past it at 10 MPH what would it have?
What if you were whizzing by on a skateboard at 20 MPH?

Your precious zero vector notwithstanding.

The momentum?

I note that you could not respond on the following:

You want others to respond to your nunsense questions

How confused can you get?

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

So how many pecks did you locate?

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.

Oh?

Remember, inertia is NOT
momentum.

Gee, every mention of "inertial this" or "inertial that" (all *phrases*)
deals with momentum & it's effects. Just like Newton's ill-worded
"law of inertia" (another phrase).

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.

PLUS the other two vectors.
You don't find many real 1D-only vectors in 3D space ...

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.

Zero m/s is a quite specific speed .... How odd ... and you say it has
an unknown & unknowable speed?



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?

No answer from BB on that one <G>.

]

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.

Only it's absolute scalar magnitude is zero and it still has those
pesky units anyway <G>.
And all those other coordinate systems still exist as well.

Nasty, nasty for things in Lintland where everything must be
falling down or floating away to who (purple unicorns?) knows where
by the oversized peck.

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.

It has a definite momentum which has a scaler magnitude of zero.
All of the conservation laws still apply, including conservation
of momentum & energy.
It's momentum is still a vector (something you refuse to begin to grasp)
quantity.

Just as you can SAY it has a vector but it would
be a ZERO vector pointing NOWHERE.

Where would you like your vectors to point?
One vector system maps to any other in this type of case
(linear Newtonian momentum vectors).
Just a simple vector translation, rotation or combination.
And things remain conserved (under the vector operations)
unless their origin systems are in motion relative to each other.

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?

Which would you like? What were the unit vectors?
Don't you have vectors in Lintland?

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

You are a bit mathematics impaired, right?

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>

And you got it where?

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.

How little you know.

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?

It's over your head?

"Some" even think time is a vector,

I'd not consider your or the lint's (or the nun's) opine of much worth.

"some" think that momentum *FORCES*
an object to remain stationary,

As compared to the risk of it eating your carpeting?

"some" think the conservation laws can't
be violated, even in open systems. LOL

They cannot for all anyone knows.
And now trying to claim you have "open systems" in Lintland
as an excuse seems a new low in the "teachings" of nuns.
Seems like you just have another ill-understood buzzword.
--
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
    ... 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
    ... *I'm* not the one who keeps mentioning Aristotle and Nuns. ... The nuns came after Aristotle an dthe churches, being very, ... that inertia doesn't exist, ... other than non-zero momentum in the reference frame considered. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: Quantum propagation from a Dirac initial point
    ... But the propagator is a Gaussian that would be integrated over x, ... dominated by whatever t near zero is doing. ... >adquate representation of the boundary condition, ... I could claim that the flat spread of momentum only ...
    (sci.physics)
  • 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)