Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 12:24:11 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Cliff wrote:

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


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>.

Cliff:

LOL That sounds suspiciously like a cop-out to me. Can you support
your claim that inertia doesn't exist with excerpts from any credible
physics sites, or can't you?

I don't need to.
With all of your frantic searching you have found none of it, cannot
define it (except in circles), have endless confusion even about the
basic laws, missed entirely the history of how the "word" became
part of *your* popular culture, cannot even begin to answer specific
questions about it, think that if you have a noise that then you must
have a thing, etc. Bad nuns & Aristotle are endemic.
Stay away from forests .. there might be trees.

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>.

I haven't seen any convincing evidence from you that time is a vector,

Have foorp that Einstein, Feynman & all the others were & are wrong?
But you don't even much begin to grasp what vectors are.

OR that momentum *FORCES* an object to remain in place,

The force of the conservation laws.
Did your bowling ball eat your carpet? I suspect not.

OR that inertia doesn't exist.

What "inertia"??

Let's see some evidence, not contentless rhetoric.




[
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.

Oh?

Excuse me? What do you mean "Oh?" With that one response you have
shown you have yet ANOTHER physics related misconception. Inertia is
NOT affected by speed or velocity (as long as they are not
relativistic). Here, let me help you out once AGAIN.

He's Google-mad <G>.

================================================================================
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:wYFOjm85hegJ:class.phys.psu.edu/211Labs/Momentum%2520Conservation/Momentum%2520Conservation.doc+conservation+of+momentum+open+systems&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=15

That seems to be about the conservation of momentum <G>.

A-7. Inertia and speed

Inertia or inert mass is not a property which changes with speed.

That's mass. We already have it.

The inertia of a body (its inertial mass) is an unchanging property of
every material object and is not dependent on its speed.

"Inertial mass" is a phrase.
Definitions of Inertial mass on the Web:
"The inertial mass of an object is the mass that is used in Newton's Second
Law of Motion."

**Note that this is not his first law as you have been claiming.**

"(physics) the mass of a body as determined by the second law of motion from
the acceleration of the body when it is subjected to a force that is not due to
gravity"

This is Newton's "Second Law":
[
Second law
The rate of change of the momentum of a body is directly proportional to the net
force acting on it, and the direction of the change in momentum takes place in
the direction of the net force.
]

Momentum & it's rate of change with an applied force.
P=m*v ==> m=P/v
F=m*a ==> m=F/a
But we already knew that.

F/a=P/v
F*v=P*a

v=(a*t)
F*a*t=P*a
F*t=P

dP/dt (derivative as in "rate of change of the momentum") = F (directly
proportional to the net force).

"Inertial mass is a measure of the resistance of an entity to a change in its
velocity relative to an inertial frame"

That's so muddy ...

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


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).

Then you've misunderstood what was being explained, or talked about.

Check the terms for a change. Phrases.
Also see such as "Laser Inertial Navigation System" which uses
massless photons (which do have 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.

PLUS the other two vectors.

The other two vectors were zero,

Their *SCALAR MAGNITUDE* was zero (but they still had units).
They are still part of the vector.

so have zero affect on the momentum.

So it will not go wandering off to do as it pleases in y & z
after all?
What of it's mass in y & z? Per the lint it's 0, right?

Are you trying to say that the answer to your question is OTHER than a
positive velocity of 10 m/s in the X axis? Let's hear what YOU think
the answer is.

This is about your lint.

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

It was YOUR question, and YOUR stated conditions. I just answered
given those conditions.

Here's a question in the same vein, for you. Assume a mass of 5 kg
with a V = (0*x + 0*y + 0*z) (m/s) What is the momentum?

5*(0*x + 0*y + 0*z) Kg (m/s) which would be conserved.

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 ...

Yeah, a quite specific velocity... identical to NO velocity at all.
LOL

Identical to "no speed" not "no velocity" as it's a quite
specific vector. Vector quantities DO NOT turn into scalars.
Of the same "type" you can do things like addition to vector
vector quantities *but you cannot add a scalar to a vector*.

Hence I can add the momentum vector above to another
momentum vector which cannot be done were it a scalar.
Nor would momentum be a vector in some coordinate systems
but a scalar in others.
When someone says that P=0 they are just using a well-understood
"shorthand" notation thet everyone else (except BB & the lint) is
well aware of.

and you say it has
an unknown & unknowable speed?

I never said any such thing. Being intentionally deceptive, yet
again? That seems to be becoming a real habit/problem with you lately.
You must be on the ropes. LOL

I'm not the one trying to turn vectors into scalars.

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>.

Was there an actual question somewhere in that mish-mash?

Many if you think about it. Did your bowling ball vanish?

Besides, since when am *I* REQUIRED to answer YOUR questions, when you
can't even answer the simple yes or no questions posed by others, eh?

We need to know where you are most confused & about what & why.

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.

Heh, I grasp that the momentum is zero and the vector points in no 3D
spatial direction.

And the unit vectors? You still don't begin to grasp it.
The 0 is a scalar. The unit vectors are not.
ANY vector times a scalar remains a vector. No matter
what the scalar. 0 is not a magic number.

How is that any different than an object having no
momentum at all within the reference frame considered?

It has a quite specific momentum, which is conserved.
IF it did not there would not be the momentum to BE conserved.

Now it has
momentum in OTHER reference frames, but that's of no concern to the
local reference frame.

All frames exist at the same time, do they not?
But the lint wants different Physics & Mathematics in each,
right? Why? HOW?

Yeah, I've got money, it just happens to be ZERO money. LOL

Is money a vector?

And how about the apples, pears issues?
3 apples - 3 apples + 5 pears - 5 pears = 0 apples + 0 pears.
This is not the same as "If 0 apples then 0 grapes".

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?

A vector is not much of a vector if it doesn't point in SOME 3D
direction.

The unit vectors still do.

I just don't happen to worship the ZERO as you seem to. You
should start a religion of the holy ZERO! <g>

[
A man was passing by a small courtyard when he starting hearing voices and
murmuring. He went in and saw an altar with a large zero in the middle and a
banner that said 'NIL.' White-robed people were kneeling before the altar
chanting hymns to The Great Nullity and The Blessed Emptiness.

The man turned to a white-robed observer beside him and asked, "Is Nothing
Sacred?"
]

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

They cannot for all anyone knows.

Uh oh. Yet ANOTHER conceptual boo-boo, THIS one is of MAJOR
proportions.

Nope. You are confused by the term & the context.
Once you are considering these things the causes are part of
the system.
Conservaton laws are NOT violated. That's why they are called "laws".

You've been crowing about the conservation laws for what
must be like YEARS now, and with this one comment you show that your
understanding of the conservation laws is flawed, since you don't/didn't
even know that the conservation laws are ONLY valid in closed systems.
Here, let me help you out once AGAIN.

======================================================================================
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:wYFOjm85hegJ:class.phys.psu.edu/211Labs/Momentum%2520Conservation/Momentum%2520Conservation.doc+conservation+of+momentum+open+systems&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=15

That all seems to again be on the conservation of momenum <G>.

Momentum is conserved in a system only if the system is isolated from
all external effects. In other words, conservation of momentum occurs
when all objects that interact with each other are considered to be part
of the system.

Sort of like being in one universe? NOT being in Lintland?

For example, consider the collisions that take place on
a pool table when playing billiards. If only one ball is considered to
be ?the system?, then the momentum of that ball is not conserved because
the ball is being influenced by the other billiard balls. However, if
all of the billiard balls together define ?the system?, then the
momentum lost by some of the balls is found to be gained by the others.
Perfectly isolated systems rarely, if ever, occur.
=======================================================================================

=======================================================================================
http://www.google.com/search?q=conservation+of+momentum+open+systems&hl=en&lr=&start=40&sa=N

Momentum is a conserved quantity, meaning that the total momentum of any
closed system cannot be changed.
=======================================================================================

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

If the system is an isolated system, then the momentum of the system is
a constant of the motion and subject to the principle of conservation of
momentum.
=======================================================================================

Note where the last two sites say: "closed system" and "isolated
system".

So what?
Math errors are not my problem here <G>.
--
Cliff
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Fusible Alloy Wager - Was Re: cerrobend holding power
    ... Force is not energy, BB. ... You've been confusing momentum with inertia for years. ... Momentum is mass times velocity. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... IF it moved it would need an alteration in it's momentum, ... It's the same mass in any case. ... You are now confusing "inertia" with things like velocity, ... change can possibly occur to the object's uniform motion. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: The Way of the KOOK Was: Looking like wwIII
    ... Those pecks of "inertia" should be pretty easy for you to ... Momentum we have along ... That's a mass moving at a constant velocity. ... Law of Motion." ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: The Way of the KOOK Was: Looking like wwIII
    ... knowledge of physics? ... Did you miss where even your dictionary definition said inertia was "a ... Momentum we have along ... Momentum always exists for a mass or a photon just as 3D space & time ...
    (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)