Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 17:45:28 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Cliff wrote:

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?

Cliff:

It may to some, but probably not to you, since it just illustrates
either your faulty memory,

Of one phrase you used once OVER two years ago (probably ins
some lint-induced confusion)?

or your propensity to engage in intentional
deception.

=============================================================================
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".

It wasn't supposed to.

So not even your own old posts support the lint today?

It was a clear refutation of YOUR erroneous
claim that *I* had never stated that inertia is a principle. I thought
it did THAT quite well.

From over two years ago? LOL ...

Don't you get it yet? Newton's first law is about momentum &
it's conservation.

Newton's first law is the definition of the principle of inertia,

Nope. Read it again. Several times.
"Inertia" was Galileo's (1564-1642) and was circular too <G>.
Newton (1642-1727) was later.

that's why it's often called the "Law of Inertia". Statements often
have more than one consequence.

Just because some call Newton's first law the "Law of Inertia" does
not indicate that you have any pecks of inertia.
You keep thinking that just because you have a noise that a thing
must exist. Bad nuns indeed.

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?

I'm not "claiming" any such thing. You asked if I could find a site
that said inertia is a principle. I posted two of them, it's as simple
as that.

And they claimed forces which makes it your claim. Or are you saying
again that what you claimed as support for your claims was wrong again?

Now it's YOUR turn, post a couple of credible physics sites that state
that inertia doesn't exist, even in principle.

I don't need to as you can find none of it.

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

So?

You don't need to claim otherwise.

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

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

Newton's first law is the very definition of the principle of inertia.

Which YOU cannot even define at all.
While mass, velocity & momentum is very well defined and
exactly what Newton ws talking about.
NOWHERE does he mention Galileo's "inertia" in those
laws.

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.

Funny how Newton's first law is commonly referred to as the "Law of
Inertia".

Funny how many hits Google gets for "idiot" or "god".
And how you don't grasp phrases.

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

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?

So what you're essentially saying is that you CAN'T find even ONE
credible physics site that supports your position that inertia DOESN'T
exist?

I don't need to.

Why am I not surprised. LMAO!

Because you don't know what the subject is about.

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?

I see you couldn't find any instance of ME saying "inertia is the
measure of mass". So you've been shown to be either simply wrong, or
intentionally deceitful, yet AGAIN. LOL

You cannot tell which is which is seems .... sort of like telling
the null set from the null set.
Need to buy a program guide?

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"???

Yes, I do.

Where are the pecks?

Every time you measure mass you're measuring inertia, since
measuring mass IS measuring an object's inertia.

How circular can you get?
m=2*E/(v^2)
m=P/v
m=E/c^2
m1=|F|*(R^2)/(G*m2)

Where are the pecks?

BTW, Mass is measured in units such as grams, ... Where are
your pecks of animistic "inertia"?


Point to the pecks.

If you measure the mass in 'pecks', you've measured the 'pecks' of
inertia.

We already have units for mass. See above.
Tell us how to measure your pecks of animistic "inertia".

Got foorp? This should be simple, right? Just ask the lint.

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.

LOL That's what you usually say when you've run out of convincing
points to make. I seem to have caught you in a series of bogus strawman
intentional deceits though. LMAO

You don't seem to know much about the subject beyond using Google.

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

No. Not at all. But YOU are showing yourself to be quite silly in
some of your Cliffphysics interpretations.

Show the pecks <G>.

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>.

Measuring the mass of an object IS measuring its inertia.

So mass keeps mass from moving if it's not moving?
Measuring the mass yields the mass in units of mass,
such as grams.
We already know that.
No pecks of "inertia" there.

I'll also remind you that both Newton and Galileo quite distinctly
mentioned motion (Newton even with vectors).
Do you see any motion units in grams? Time? Vectors?

Try telling us *in your own words* what you think this is about !!

I posited a few items for your comments a few posts back.
You avoided them like the plague. More confusion?

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

Huh?

See? You don't get any of it.


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

Why haven't you yet complied with my request above? LOL

I don't need to <G>.

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?

You implied that something can't exist if you cannot measure it.

You claim that it does but cannot find it.
Hence it could be anything lint-based or nothing at all.


jI ust attempted to show how silly that particular idea is. There are
innumerable things that can't be measured, that exist.

Flying nuns?

I thought this was about Physics, not nuns.

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?

Nope. That was one of YOUR bogus strawman arguments. Inertia is a
property of material objects, it doesn't change whether the object is
stationary or moving

Contrary to all of your prior statements to EXACTLY that effect,
right? Lose your bowling ball?

(we're talking classical mechanics here - and
ruling out relativistic effects). Didn't I just correct your
misconception of that yesterday? Inertia is NOT momentum, which DOES
increase with increasing velocity.

And exists when |velocity| = 0 as well.
But you were so worried about your non-moving bowling ball ...
which does the lint say it is today?

"Which has more "inertia", a 10 kg rock sitting still, or a 1 kg rock moving
at 20 m/s? "

Momentum is conserved.

Only in closed or isolated systems.

You are now claiming that you can find no pecks of "inertia" because
"pecks are open systems"? LOL ...

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.

Momentum is ONLY conserved in a closed or isolated system. Go look it
up if you don't believe me.

What is leading you & the lint ever onwards into the depths of
confusion today?

Mass is the measure of inertia. Look it up.

Mass is mass. It is measured in mass units.
Look it up.

Hey, I said it first. Besides, I HAVE looked it up, and a bazillion
physics sites say that mass is the measure of inertia. I haven't seen
ANY sites say that inertia doesn't exist. Could you please post a
few? LOL

I could find no pecks of "inertia", sorry.

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.

Can mass be changed/converted into energy? Yes or No?

m<>E.
E<>m.
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?

Good advice to follow, since you've made so many conceptual boo-boos in
this thread.

I'm not the confused one that keeps changing their story <G>.
Perhaps you don't even know it ... denial ...

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 ?

I'm not interested in replying to your pet kooks from other groups.

Not my "pets". Nor kooks either for the most part.
If you want kooks just look at the lint.

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

Newton's first law is the definition of inertia,

Nope. Not even mentioned.

that's probably why
its often called the "Law of Inertia."

"Often called" a *phrase*.
You need to keep up.

BTW, You claimed above that mass is the measure of "inertia" yet
Newton's first law is about motion, not about mass "measuring" in
any way your magical "inertia".

Think some more. Quite a lot more <G>.
You keep tripping all over your claims.
HTH
--
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: 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: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... Why is Newton's "First Law" about motion? ... Inertia is not measured directly; ... Mass is mass. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)