# Re: Russel the Shill, KB's and Social Darwinism, Pavel and Lou Reed.... Re: new kettlebell

"Seth" <sethb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ieo0c5\$frq\$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <4cee8469\$0\$7136\$607ed4bc@xxxxxx>,
Existential Angst <fitcat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Seth" <sethb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:icjdeb\$oh8\$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ad hominem argument: if you have no better evidence than that, you
lose.

But given that you can't do arithmetic and don't know what you're

Oh, you mean the 15#, swung at 10 g's, has a TOTAL force of 165# on the
arms
at the *bottom* of the arc -- oh, yeah, and 135# at the *top* of the arc?
THOSE errors???
Not arithmetic, dude, HS physics. Well, if you took physics in HS, at any
rate.

If you're accelerating the weight at 10 g's, then at the bottom, the
acceleration is _horizontal_. In that case, the total force is 1g
down, and 10g horizontal, so you can't add them as scalars. I take it
you didn't do very well in high school physics.

Or are you claiming that at the bottom, the weight is already moving
so fast that the centrifugal force is 10g? I'll do the arithmetic for
you: with a radius of 2 feet, 320 ft/sec^2 (=10 g) = omega^2 * 2;
omega is angular speed = about 12.7 or about 720 degrees per second.
You do the same scalar addition at the top, implying the same angular
speed there; do you really do swings at constant angular speed, or are
they (like when done by a human) even faster in the middle?

With a radius of 3 feet, 320 = omega^2 * 3, omega = 10.3 or about 591
degrees/second. I don't believe you move that fast, either.

If you'd like, I can send you the force diagram (vectors'n'shit) in a
Paint
attachment or sumpn -- in color, even.

Why don't you try understanding it first?

It may sound a little arrogant, but some people no need no stinkin
evidence,
because the basic principles are so clear.

Clear and wrong, in your case. But then, you don't find actual
evidence convincing, either, preferring to badmouth people who provide
counterexamples to your religious beliefs.

Seth
--
Of course, common logic fails to hold up here on mfw, as a general rule
of thumb. -- Lyle McDonald

EA, no response?

.

• Follow-Ups:
• References:

## Relevant Pages

• Re: The electron shell model is in challenge
... been seen, you are a brain dead idiot, plain and simple. ... understanding of physics. ... Care to present evidence that Maxwell's ... to plainly see that radiation is *not* caused by resonance. ...
(sci.physics.particle)
• Re: The electron shell model is in challenge
... been seen, you are a brain dead idiot, plain and simple. ... understanding of physics. ... Care to present evidence that Maxwell's ... to plainly see that radiation is *not* caused by resonance. ...
(sci.physics)
• Re: What Does SR stand For?
... Today, because of the evidence, no one could ... shown to be simple 3-D math. ... accordance with the equations of relativity. ... But we know that space exists and even in classical physics, ...
(sci.physics.relativity)
• Re: THE GENESES OF THE FALSE THEORIES IN PHYSICS
... Even before physics turned into metaphysics no theory was rejected - ... was rejected and the wave in aether theory accepted. ... All the evidence pointed to the fact that light is primarily ... Every attempt to demonstrate the existence of an aether has failed. ...
(sci.physics.relativity)
• Re: Ownage
... I said I wouldn't "take time" responding. ... In fact the evidence supports my case. ... I don't know, and TBH it suits me fine, David. ... taiji than you do about physics. ...
(rec.martial-arts)