kallend 2,150
Recommended Posts
willard 0
QuoteQuote
Sorry Kallend, but Newtons Second Law is most certainly Force =mass time * acceleration. Look it up.
I am by no means under the impression that I know all there is to know about physics..
What is "mass time"? IS it a new physical quantity you have just invented?
I have actually read Newton's Principia, have you? I know what he ACTUALLY wrote in his book, do you?
Newton's 2nd law (translated from Latin) is:
The rate of change of momentum of a body is proportional to the resultant force acting on the body and is in the same direction.
Do you see the words "mass" and "acceleration" in there? It's about MOMENTUM (given the symbol p in physics).
Rate of change of momentum is dp/dt
The 2nd law says dp/dt = C*f, where C is a constant.
You are out of your depth.
mass time * was a typo. should read mass*accel.
QuoteI have actually read Newton's Principia, have you? I know what he ACTUALLY wrote in his book, do you?
Am I supposed to be impressed? Do you expect people to bow to you because you read it. Reading something does not necessarily translate to understanding. It works both ways in our little exchange going on here.
F=ma is perfectly acceptable when mass is held constant. If it's good enough for NASA, it's good enough for me. Just because you feel it's not the form you prefer to use doesn't make it wrong. Unless you are now claiming to not only be smarter than Isaac Newton, but smarter than all of NASA combined as well? Get off your perch, Kallend. Arrogance doesn't become you.
kallend 2,150
Quote
Am I supposed to be impressed?
No - you are supposed to get your facts right before posting rubbish on the internet. I tell you what Newton wrote, and you counter it with a NASA web page designed for children.
You misquoted Newton,
you were wrong about Wikipedia,
you were wrong about "Always has, always will",
you were wrong about the gravitational constant,
you wrote a dimensionally incorrect equation,
you were wrong that F=ma is a fact proven over the centuries...
In fact pretty much everything you have written in this thread shows that you don't have a very good grasp of basic physics.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
willard 0
QuoteIn fact pretty much everything you have written in this thread shows that you don't have a very good grasp of basic physics
Same can be said of you, Kallend.
Unlike you I admit when I've made a mistake. Unlike you I don't see someone's typo and ride them constantly about it and keep bringing it up even after it has been corrected. Unlike you I don't claim to know more than all of the scientific community combined.
But most importantly, unlike you I realize there is more to learn in this world than any one person could come close to learning. When you're through learning, you're through.
JackC 0
QuoteF=ma is perfectly acceptable when mass is held constant. If it's good enough for NASA, it's good enough for me. Just because you feel it's not the form you prefer to use doesn't make it wrong. Unless you are now claiming to not only be smarter than Isaac Newton, but smarter than all of NASA combined as well? Get off your perch, Kallend. Arrogance doesn't become you.
Dude, nasa use c*f=dp/dt not f=m*a. The one thing you need to take into account when designing rockets is all the mass you eject out the back. If you really are trying to get a degree in this stuff, you'd do well to listen to Kallend and not argue the toss with him because it seems to me that you really don't know what your talking about.
kallend 2,150
QuoteQuoteIn fact pretty much everything you have written in this thread shows that you don't have a very good grasp of basic physics
Same can be said of you, Kallend.
Unlike you I don't claim to know more than all of the scientific community combined.
.
This is really funny. You have a whole bunch of people here, all better trained in science than you, telling you what the scientific community says, and you argue and argue with them and tell them they are wrong. And then you have the nerve to make accusations like that.
You should have quit while you were just a little way behind.
Just out of curiosity, what have I written that you think is contrary to accepted physics?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
dorbie 0
Quote
"The attractive force exerted by the Earth on an object is called the gravitational force. This force is directed toward the center of the earth , and it's magnitude is called the weight of an object."
The key word here is exerted. How do you calculate the gravitational force exerted on a mass? You multiply it by the thing you don't know what to call and I won't tell you. But it's none of the things you have said it is so far, and it certainly isn't force, Gravitational force is the product. Here's one for you, the gravitational force exerted on the Earth by you is the same as the gravitational force exerted on you by the Earth [edit to add obviously along opposite directions] (the Earth is massive and you don't see it moved by small forces), but the vector quantity you don't know what to call is very different in each direction if you choose to do the calculation. It can be done, the only reason I state this is to emphasize just how badly wrong you are about what gravitational force is.
You really are hopeless at this, you should stop. You keep claiming flagrantly wrong stuff and arguing over it.
That's a very nice web page for kiddies - nice pictures, big print.
Did you notice the qualifier about "If the mass is a constant". Does that suggest anything to you?
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites