Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:19:16 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:49:14 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Cliff:

Let me try to remove most of your nonsense gibberish and respond only
to those things that have a modicum of actual content.



Inertia is a "principle", haven't I been telling you that for years.

Nope. You've calimed quite a few confused things so far but not that.

Uh oh, looks like you're WRONG yet again. Let me copy the relevant
parts of one of my posts from about 2 1/2 years ago.

Will it be amusing?

=============================================================================
Date: Sat, Feb 14 2004 5:45 pm
Email: BottleBob <bottl...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Groups: alt.machines.cnc

<snip>

Just one minor point though, there doesn't seem to be much math
in
Newton's First Law of motion since it's primarily a verbal statement of
principle.
===============================================================================

Does that refresh your memory now? LMAO!

And that says nothing at all about pecks of "inertia".
Don't you get it yet? Newton's first law is about momentum &
it's conservation.

So back at you: Can you find even a basic Jr. High Site that claims
that "inertia" is a "principle"?

Easily, there are hundreds.

================================================================================
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.

<GAK>
NOW you are claiming that your pecks of "inertia" are about forces?
Such as your bowling ball NOT eating the carpet?

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

================================================================================
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/People/rapidproto/mechanisms/chpt1.html

1.3.1 Newton's First Law

When no force is exerted on a body, it stays at rest or moves in a
straight line with constant speed.

Just like the conservation of momentum.

This principle of inertia is also
known as Newton's first law.

But it in no way mentions pecks of "inertia".

It is from this law that Newton was able to
build up our present understanding of dynamics.

The animistic term "inertia" was well known by Newton's day IIRC
so Newton was not mentioning anything about it.

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

Now it's YOUR turn. The following space is left blank so you can post
a credible physics site that states that inertia DOESN'T exist.

Go find a few pecks for public display. Unless they keep wandering
off when you are not looking?

Mass is a measure of inertia.

You said before that "inertia is the measure of mass", right?

Nope. Are you again resorting to an intentional deceit because you've
run out of cogent points to make? I double dog dare you to find where I
said: "inertia is the measure of mass".

So you are claiming that mass measures "inertia" sort of like
stepping on a peck?
Mass=mass. It exists it seems.
It does NOT exist to measure "inertia" of which you can find no
measured pecks.

Look at E=m*(v^2)/2.
Look at P=m*v.
Look at E=m*c^2.
Look at |F|=G*m1*m2/R^2.

Do you SEE any "inertia" being "measured"???
Point to the pecks.

You still like circles I see.

Bogus strawman argument, FIRST you fabricated/twisted a phrase, THEN
attributed it to me, THEN used it as a circular criticism? How honest,
or ethical, is THAT? Cliff, you don't seem to place much value in
being truthful at all, do you.

You remain confused.
Naturally, anyone that does not agree with your Google & nun
induced state of confusion (or the lint) ...

Literally hundreds of educational,
encyclopedia, and physics sites say the same identical thing. I've not
seen even ONE site say otherwise, care to post any that DO?

I don't need to as you can find no pecks of "inertia".
Just things like kilograms of mass.

Mass is the measure of inertia.

Kilograms, grams, etc. measure mass.
Mass is a *thing*. It can be measured.
Things do not measure that which is not <G>.

Are you going to soon again posting about needing animistic causes
for not having effects?

Post some physics sites that state that inertia doesn't exist.


Inertia is that property of mass that resists (or
opposes) change in a motion state.

We have conservation laws that cover all of that sort of thing.
Did the nuns toss them out?

BTW, IF you had such you could measure it, right? LOL ....

No pecks of consciousness either, I guess it can't exist. LMAO!

Trying to change the subject again?

Just illustrating the flaws in your argument.

Nope. Frying red herrings ... are they animistic too?

Momentum has nothing to do with the tendency of an object to remain at
rest.

Provide foorp that Newton was wrong.

Newton's not wrong. Your interpretation that momentum *FORCES* an
object to remain stationary IS.

You claimed that your animistic "inertia" does, right? And that if a
mass is NOT moving *in your local coordinate system* THEN it has "inertia"
which forces it not to eat your carpet, right?

Momentum is conserved.
Without any cause there is no effect.
Your bowling ball will NOT eat. No matter it's velocity.
And zero velocity (or momentum) (both vector quantities) remain
vectors with momentum being conserved.

Mass is mass & is measured in assorted units reserved for mass, such
as grams. It is never measured in pecks of "inertia".

Per Einstein E=m*c^2.
I see no term for "inertia".

That's because mass is the measure of inertia.

Mass is mass.
You just get conflicting claims about "inertia" it looks like <VBG>.
BTW, It might mean "slow to learn".

Mass is the measure of inertia. Look it up.

Mass is mass. It is measured in mass units.
Look it up.
How many pecks of "inertia" is 10 Kg of mass?
Why would you think that???

But then again, you don't seem to even understand that E=mc^2 is the
formula for converting mass units to energy units.

m<>E.
C is NOT a scalar conversion factor.

Please answer this question: Can mass be changed/converted into
energy? Yes or No

E<>m.

Cliffoided the question yet again, did you? Why?

m<>E.
C is NOT a scalar conversion factor.

And the mass might even be moving ... but you claim that "inertia"
is what is has that causes it to NOT want (pesky nuns with their
animism) to move.

I guess you didn't understand those 50-100 definitions of Newton's
first law.

Why not just read it & think?

Look it up.

Perhaps you could diagram the sentences & look up
the words? Or take a basic science class?

It's a simple concept, I fail to see what your problem is in
understanding it, unless you're just trolling. If someone is unable to
understand the underlying principles of physics all the math in the
world isn't going to be of much benefit since erroneous interpretations
will continually be made.

Yet you have yet to produce your very first peck of "inertia" but I can
readily produce grams of mass.

Mass is the measure of inertia.

A mantra yet you & the lint can produce no such measured pecks?

In the future, please do your OWN homework.

I have no need.

You don't? Who are you trying to kid? Yourself, or others? LMAO!

Show me your peck of "inertia" <G>.

Mass is the measure of inertia.

Like green or red?

BTW, I ask you once again to please refrain from crossposting my
replies to other groups that I'm not the slightest bit interested in.

My post. Some might enjoy a fresh loon.
Why are you afraid of fresh input/education ?

Found that peck of "inertia" yet?
Tell us again what it's supposed to be per the lint ...
Be clear, concise & *use your own words*.
Feel free to set some equations before us that show your claimed effect ..

BTW, Why is Newton's "First Law" about motion (and not pecks)?

HTH
--
Cliff
.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... added, said that mass ... The force of the conservation laws, ... Found any pecks of "inertia" lately? ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental laws of classical ... Newton's First Law ... You said before that "inertia is the measure of mass", ... Post some physics sites that state that inertia doesn't exist. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... Newton's first law is the definition of the principle of inertia, ... You said before that "inertia is the measure of mass", ... Every time you measure mass you're measuring inertia, ...
    (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)