kallend 2,150 #101 February 9, 2007 Quote F=ma is perfectly acceptable when mass is held constant. If it's good enough for NASA, it's good enough for me. . Here's a little problem you can do easily using F=ma. I'll put in SI units so there's no confusion about definitions. An object is measured in the lab on the surface of the Earth and found to have a mass of 1kg (held constant). It is accelerated to and held at a constant velocity of 299792400 m/s. Nothing is added to or taken from the object during this time. It is then acted upon by a force (in the direction of its motion) of 100N for 1 second. What is its final velocity?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #102 February 9, 2007 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. STUNNING! I may print and frame this. Maybe I'll bump the thread every now and then to embarrass you if you ever actually learn something about Physics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #103 February 10, 2007 Quote A persons salary is assumed to be either dollars per hour or dollars per year. Easy to tell apart...not many people would take a job paying $15/year, nor do many people make $35,000/hr. (Though some do). And if you said 'X is making 60' - would that dollars per hour, or thousands of dollars per year?' Without the k or the $/hr, no, it's not easily concluded if given merely as a scalar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #104 February 10, 2007 Not to argue with a physic prof about physics... Would you accept wikipedia as a valid source for your class? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #105 February 10, 2007 QuoteNot to argue with a physic prof about physics... Would you accept wikipedia as a valid source for your class? In what respect? For a term paper, no, I would not accept it as a reference in a bibliography. As a practical matter, the wierd stuff on Wiki seems restricted to political and social issues. The technical and scientific content seems pretty sound; better than some textbooks, actually. However technical bibliographies should refer to original sources or peer reviewed articles whenever possible. It was interesting that Wiki had Anna Nicole Smith's date of death on her bio page before it was announced on CNN.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #106 February 11, 2007 QuoteI slipped and included grams as weight, they are indeed mass. Therefore, everything you write cannot be used as an accepted reference. If they miswrote, that's fone, as long as they are willing to correct it. I saw them place a red banner accross the definition of FASCIST, saying there is dispute as to the definition. I see them as a very objective source of info, but let's just turn all that stuff off and tune into Rush Limbaugh and Hanity and call it good, K? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #107 February 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhat is inaccurrate about that? Hehe, that's funny. Hehee, a factually correct statement mispelled revokes the factuality of it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #108 February 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteNot to argue with a physic prof about physics... Would you accept wikipedia as a valid source for your class? In what respect? For a term paper, no, I would not accept it as a reference in a bibliography. As a practical matter, the wierd stuff on Wiki seems restricted to political and social issues. The technical and scientific content seems pretty sound; better than some textbooks, actually. However technical bibliographies should refer to original sources or peer reviewed articles whenever possible. It was interesting that Wiki had Anna Nicole Smith's date of death on her bio page before it was announced on CNN. I dunno, I think the social stuff is great and pretty close to truthful. This thread is about impeaching teh social content of Wilk in a back-door fashion by trying to impeach the technical stuff. I see they've (conservatives) failed on all fronts. I would like to see some social definitions that are incorrect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #109 February 11, 2007 QuoteYep. I know many here would argue the point, but generally speaking any government agency is considered reliable enough to use as a source for data. I know what your getting at, but once again I stress that from the first letter of the first word of my first post I have been speaking of the most commonly used form of pound which is weight. Pound as mass is much less frequently used. Gee, I thought you meant the Brittish form of currency. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #110 February 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteYep. I know many here would argue the point, but generally speaking any government agency is considered reliable enough to use as a source for data. I know what your getting at, but once again I stress that from the first letter of the first word of my first post I have been speaking of the most commonly used form of pound which is weight. Pound as mass is much less frequently used. Wiki is still correct and your first post is still wrong. That's all there is to it. This is a rehash of the other argument about 3 people being all 100% or any increment thereof, responsible for an event. At least no one has mosquoted you...... yet. Don't expect conservatives to concede, they simply aren't wired that way..... and if we had any neo-cons on here, which we don't...... oh boy , look out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #111 February 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat is inaccurrate about that? Hehe, that's funny. Hehee, a factually correct statement mispelled revokes the factuality of it? No, it was just funny. What's wrong with that?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #112 February 13, 2007 QuoteI dunno, I think the social stuff is great and pretty close to truthful. YOU do, but most professors disagree with you and it has been an issue in some schools. Just because you like the definitions does not mean they are accurate. And the very fact that they can be changed by ANYONE means that the data should not be used as fact. QuoteThis thread is about impeaching teh social content of Wilk in a back-door fashion by trying to impeach the technical stuff. I see they've (conservatives) failed on all fronts. No, the thread was about how wiki is not a good reference to be a trump card, nor used for school work no matter the political leanings nor topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #113 February 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteI dunno, I think the social stuff is great and pretty close to truthful. YOU do, but most professors disagree with you and it has been an issue in some schools. Just because you like the definitions does not mean they are accurate. And the very fact that they can be changed by ANYONE means that the data should not be used as fact. QuoteThis thread is about impeaching teh social content of Wilk in a back-door fashion by trying to impeach the technical stuff. I see they've (conservatives) failed on all fronts. No, the thread was about how wiki is not a good reference to be a trump card, nor used for school work no matter the political leanings nor topic. Suggestion to all college students - do NOT use Wiki as a citation in a bibliography.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #114 February 13, 2007 QuoteSuggestion to all college students - do NOT use Wiki as a citation in a bibliography. And on that same note I would not use it as "proof" to try and win an argument either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #115 February 14, 2007 QuoteYOU do, but most professors disagree with you and it has been an issue in some schools. So where is any support of, "most schools?" I don;t like it as a direct reference, becuase it is a compilation of various resources, so academicaly if I were a teacher I wouldn't permit a student to refer to someone elses work, it's called plagiarism. QuoteJust because you like the definitions does not mean they are accurate. And the very fact that they can be changed by ANYONE means that the data should not be used as fact. Well, they can be changed, but the basic daabase is the same, you can only change it to have fun with a page, as I know it. QuoteNo, the thread was about how wiki is not a good reference to be a trump card, nor used for school work no matter the political leanings nor topic. Right, and the hidden motive was that the author doesn;t like the social content, it places the US in a bad light. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #116 February 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteSuggestion to all college students - do NOT use Wiki as a citation in a bibliography. And on that same note I would not use it as "proof" to try and win an argument either. Proof is for fools. Science resists teh word, "proof." But to support your argument with anything that cites sources is relevant. Wilk cites its sources, so to use the entire source, if relevant and reliable is valid. The right wing wants a blanket, Wilk is fucked and just won't get it. The RW values its general Ad Hom args and usually attacks the author rather than the evidence, so this attack on Wilk is understandable and routine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #117 February 14, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water Is this incorrect? OK, so you agree with this, but since you would disagree with Wilk drawing a referenc etha tsome believe the US is neo-fascist and some say Imperialist, then you want license to selectively dismiss some of their content. I fully understand Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #118 February 14, 2007 QuoteIs this incorrect? OK, so you agree with this, but since you would disagree with Wilk drawing a referenc etha tsome believe the US is neo-fascist and some say Imperialist, then you want license to selectively dismiss some of their content. I fully understand No clearly you don't understand, or you are being obtuse, or you just can't grasp simple concepts. Wiki is not a good source since the information can be edited by anyone at anytime. It may have accurate information, or incorrect information based on who did what last. If I felt like It, I could edit the water article with bad information that might or might not get caught for days. Just because YOU like the wazoo theories on some webistes, it does not make them true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #119 February 14, 2007 Quoteacademicaly if I were a teacher I wouldn't permit a student to refer to someone elses work, it's called plagiarism. Citing is not plagiarisim...I think you never really went to school if you cannot tell the difference. QuoteWell, they can be changed, but the basic daabase is the same, you can only change it to have fun with a page, as I know it. Which makes it a bad reference. QuoteRight, and the hidden motive was that the author doesn;t like the social content, it places the US in a bad light. The problem with your BS rant is that I do not accept Wiki as a good source for ANY discussion if they are trying to prove anything. And save me your BS about "proof". You wanna live in a world where only your thoughts are good enough to be considered...Most of the rest of the world would like proof, or at least a source that has credibility. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
