Re: Fusible Alloy Wager - Was Re: cerrobend holding power



Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:55:05 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Say someone imparted a force to a bowling ball by rolling it down the
lane.

A rolling bowlig ball needs no force to remain rolling
(neglecting frictional & other losses).

Cliff:

Is this yet another example of your selective reading & comprehension?
I said: Say SOMEONE IMPARTED a force to a bowling ball by rolling it
down the lane." Notice the emphasized words SOMEONE IMPARTED a force...


Just where do you think that force came from if not the energy
expended by the bowler?

If there was NO BOWLER expending energy to impart a force to the
bowling ball... it would never have rolled down the lane. I mean how
simple does an illustration have to be before you get it?


Force is not energy, BB. Nor is energy force.

I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that forces don't magically appear
out of thin air - they have causes.


Or take the force of a car traveling 60 MPH hitting a telephone pole,
just what do you think created that force if not the energy expended by
burning gasoline?

Force is not energy, BB. Nor is energy force.

I'm not saying it is. You're not thinking here Cliff, you're just
regurgitating something you learned by rote, that isn't applicable to
the simple examples I've given. The car doesn't get to 60 MPH by
magic... it burns gasoline (energy is expended), for the car to reach
that speed and be able to impart a force to that telephone pole.


Or just where do you think the force imparted to the rock in a quarry
by an explosion of dynamite came from if not the release of chemical
energy of the explosive?

Force is not energy, BB. Nor is energy force.

Again, I'm not saying it is. I'm saying the force imparted to the rock
from the explosion is CAUSED by the release of chemical energy in the
explosive.


Forces don't just magically appear out of thin air, they have causes.

Such as your little green pecks of "inertia"? Which you think you NEED
as your CAUSE for NOTHING TO HAPPEN?

So when you see you've backed yourself into a conceptual corner you
totally give up trying to use logic, reason, or thought? and just
resort to silliness and ridiculous nonsense? And then you wonder why
other people question your credibility and label you a kook?


Inertia is the property of an object
to remain stationary if it already stationary, or to keep moving if it's
already moving.

Momentum is conserved. So what?

You've been confusing momentum with inertia for years. There is zero
momentum in a stationary object.

Wrong.

Oh? Let's go through the exercise one more time, and see what a number
of physics sites have to say about momentum.

=================================================================
http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/mechanics/momentum/definition/m...

Momentum is mass times velocity.

p = mv
When an object is moving, it has a non-zero momentum. If an
object is
standing still, then its momentum is zero.
=================================================================

=================================================================
http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/mechanics/momentum/momentum.html

Objects in motion are said to have a momentum. This momentum is
a
vector. It has a size and a direction. The size of the momentum is equal
to the mass of the object multiplied by the size of the object's
velocity.
=================================================================

Note where it says: "Objects in MOTION".

=================================================================
http://www.scienceclarified.com/everyday/Real-Life-Chemistry-Vol-3/Mo...

The faster an object is moving?whether it be a baseball, an
automobile,
or a particle of matter?the harder it is to stop. This is a reflection
of momentum, or specifically, linear momentum, which is equal to mass
multiplied by velocity.
Momentum, by definition, involves a body in motion...
=================================================================


Momentum is a vector quantity and remains so no matter the velocity,
even when the *scalar absolute value* (speed) of the velocity is zero
*in some specific coordinate system*.

Sorry, but I tend to believe credible physics sites more than
self-admitted trolls.



Where are your little green pecks of "inertia"??

Sorry, that's your fantasy, not mine.

Are they purple in Lintland?

More silliness to cover one of your major conceptual boo-boos? LOL


I'm not the one that claims inertia doesn't exist,

So why cannot you find any pecks of it?

Mass is the measure of inertia.

Mass is measured in units such as grams, not in pecks
of magical "inertia".

Well let's look what Richard Feynman has to say about inertia:

=====================================================================
http://www.atlas.uni-wuppertal.de/~sandvoss/buecherauszuegephysik/nod...

Richard P. Feynman, lectures on physics

The principle of inertia: if an object is left alone, is not disturbed,
it continues to move with a constant velocity in a straight line if it
was originally moving, or it continues to stand still if it was just
standing still.

We use the term mass as a quantitative measure of inertia. (I, 9-1)
======================================================================

As well as the hyperphysics site:

======================================================================
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mass.html#mas

The mass of an object is a fundamental property of the object; a
numerical measure of its inertia; a fundamental measure of the amount of
matter in the object.
======================================================================

And the Wik science encyclopedia:

======================================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia#Mass_and_.27inertia.27

The mass of a body determines the momentum P of the body at given
velocity v; it is a proportionality factor in the formula:

P = mv

The factor m is referred to as inertial mass.

But mass as related to 'inertia' of a body can be defined also by the
formula:

F = ma

By this formula, the greater its mass, the less a body accelerates under
given force.

Thus, "mass is the quantitative or numerical measure of a body?s
inertia, that is of
resistance to being accelerated".
======================================================================

And from the glossary of Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History
of
Time."

======================================================================
http://www.physics.metu.edu.tr/~fizikt/html/hawking/l.html

Mass: The quantity of matter in a body; its inertia, or resistance to
acceleration.
======================================================================


Pecks are a measurement of volume and
have nothing to do with inertia.

How would you know? You seem unable to find any of it so it
might well be. Remember the lint.

Your repetition of this bit of
nonsense is just your way of trying to save face from making a major
conceptual boo-boo.

I've made none, BB.


Oh? Now if you have some illusions that you know more about physics
than
Richard Feynman, Stephen Hawking, and the physics community in general,
then by all means write a paper that inertia is imaginary & doesn't
exist then publish it in a peer reviewed physics journal.
Until you do that, or find a number of credible physics sites
that
agree with you that inertia doesn't exist, your opinions on this matter
are just so much unsubstantiated conjecture, and not worth further
consideration.


How many in here do you think are fooled by it
after all this time, eh? LMAO!

I doubt many are looking for your pecks.

They're not MY pecks, that's just your attempted smoke screen to cover
your conceptual error of not understanding what the principle of inertia
means.


and
who can't find a credible science source that agrees with that
conclusion.

You kind of need to know what the subject is. And what phrases are
(a bit of the history of science could not hurt either).

So you CAN'T find a credible science source that agrees with you? Not
even ONE?

I don't need to.

You don't NEED to? I try to support all my positions with credible
science sites, and if I state an OPINION or make a SPECULATION about
something, I try to always label them as such. But when I ask YOU to
support one of your positions with a cite from a credible physics source
all you have to say is: "I don't need to"? That doesn't exactly inspire
confidence in your claims/conclusions/interpretations.


"Water expands so I'll toss out reason, math , science & logic"

The "glass that's firmly held in the ice experiment" should indicate to
anyone willing to look at the objective facts that there is probably no
expansion of the hole around the glass, otherwise the glass could be
easily removed.

http://van.physics.uiuc.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2679
Borosilicate Glass: CTE, linear 20°C 4 µm/m-°C 2.22 µin/in-°F

What do either of those lines have to do with the expansion of fusible
alloys to hold inserted objects?

Expansion <G>.

Like I asked: "What do either of those lines have to do with the
expansion of fusible alloys to hold inserted objects?"


A quick reality check: just DRAW the hole on the flat stock.
Expand the stock.
What happened to the hole you drew?

What you are failing to realize is THAT isn't the case here. Draw a
circle between the cup's wall and the inserted object. Let the
expanding medium cool/solidify, will your drawn circle move toward the
cup's wall, toward the inserted object, or just kind of stay where it
was radially but perhaps rise a little?

If it expands probably break the cup while the circle expands. Why?

Out of multiple tests I've made in bowls and cups only ONE cup broke.
The Cerrobend 158 is free to expand UPWARD which lessens the pressure
that would push outward if it had its upward movement restrained.

IIRC That "inserted object" is a solid too, right?
What does IT do?

It sits there and gets *SQUEEZED* by the expanding phase changing
medium (whether ice, Cerrobend 158, or whatever).


Sort of like 63-44 = 19 (not 16)?

I don't even know what you're referring to now.

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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Calculating Newtons in Joules and Joules/s
    ... Momentum and energy are separately conserved. ... If the 3 kg mass were to get all of the momentum of the ... Make it two 4 kilogram masses instead of two 3 kg masses. ... kinetic energy is conserved. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • 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)
  • Walk to wrong ideas (E/=mc2)
    ... "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, ... and mass means the ordinary newtonian mass of a slow ... and carry opposite momentum." ... emission means you can't predict when a photon will be emitted. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... that inertia doesn't exist, ... I said that time is one & mass might be. ... That seems to be about the conservation of momentum. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: Can this relativity paradox (center of mass problem) be resolved?
    ... in Newtonian mechanics, this is no problem, since the mass ... momentum compensation, that is a problem: it moves the centroid of the ... You cannot get energy from nothing and since the mass is locally ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)