Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
An object remains stationary unless acted on by a force? Ever heard of that law?If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?
Wtf?
Wtf?
I'm practically telling you the answer, come on.
Wtf?
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.htmlQuoteThe center of mass of the gas was initially in one corner and finally in the center. What was its trajectory and its velocity in the intervening period?https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.35.3492
If the centre of mass is initially stationary, then starting moving once free expansion begins, what does newtons 2nd law tell us?
Wtf?
If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?
Wtf?
Wtf?
I'm practically telling you the answer, come on.
Wtf?
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
The center of mass of the gas was initially in one corner and finally in the center. What was its trajectory and its velocity in the intervening period?https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.35.3492
If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?
Wtf?
Wtf?
Movement, when an object moves from A to B, what's so hard to understand.It's how things are able to move.Movement, things can move, get over it.You aren't likely to get an answer. He's just a troll who feeds on the attention. He usually ends up getting banned.Please answer the simplest of questions. Which law? Why is this so difficult for you?Which law? I don't remember any that apply exclusively to man made objects...Where is your evidence for the claim man made objects can’t travel at 11.1 km/s?To answer your boring bot query anyway, as stated my evidence is the laws of physics.
The answer was: the laws of physics you are not programmed to understand.
This answer will not change, just as your programming to misunderstand the laws of physics will not change.
The answer is: Papa don't get how conservation of movement work.
Conservation of what now?
Conservation of movement eh?
Interesting.
Your translation software may need an upgrade.
Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?
Wtf?
And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
It's how things are able to move.Movement, things can move, get over it.You aren't likely to get an answer. He's just a troll who feeds on the attention. He usually ends up getting banned.Please answer the simplest of questions. Which law? Why is this so difficult for you?Which law? I don't remember any that apply exclusively to man made objects...Where is your evidence for the claim man made objects can’t travel at 11.1 km/s?To answer your boring bot query anyway, as stated my evidence is the laws of physics.
The answer was: the laws of physics you are not programmed to understand.
This answer will not change, just as your programming to misunderstand the laws of physics will not change.
The answer is: Papa don't get how conservation of movement work.
Conservation of what now?
Conservation of movement eh?
Interesting.
Movement, things can move, get over it.You aren't likely to get an answer. He's just a troll who feeds on the attention. He usually ends up getting banned.Please answer the simplest of questions. Which law? Why is this so difficult for you?Which law? I don't remember any that apply exclusively to man made objects...Where is your evidence for the claim man made objects can’t travel at 11.1 km/s?To answer your boring bot query anyway, as stated my evidence is the laws of physics.
The answer was: the laws of physics you are not programmed to understand.
This answer will not change, just as your programming to misunderstand the laws of physics will not change.
The answer is: Papa don't get how conservation of movement work.
Conservation of what now?
Water is an incompressible fluid.So water being incompressible makes it harder for it to transfer a force, lollolololololololol. You dumb.
Lol round and round we go in the mad shillgorithm waltz...My visual evidence is that the rocket in the video is not a gas.A rocket and it's exhaust are demonstrably not two separate objects. Because both the rocket an exhaust are clearly both gasses
The rocket and the exhaust are part of the same system, exerting a force vector rearwards. Wait no, the rocket would diffuse in all directions because it's a gas
This accords with Newton's third law i.e. everything is a gas
Proof that the rocket and exhaust are part of the same system can be attained through simple observation, where it is seen that the rocket is a gas
It will also be noted that the rocket exhaust forces up huge clouds of dirt at launch, proving that the exhaust is creating a powerful force pairing with its external environment.
If you cannot provide similar visual evidence for your mad model, using a rocket, do not reply.
You aren't likely to get an answer. He's just a troll who feeds on the attention. He usually ends up getting banned.Please answer the simplest of questions. Which law? Why is this so difficult for you?Which law? I don't remember any that apply exclusively to man made objects...Where is your evidence for the claim man made objects can’t travel at 11.1 km/s?To answer your boring bot query anyway, as stated my evidence is the laws of physics.
The answer was: the laws of physics you are not programmed to understand.
This answer will not change, just as your programming to misunderstand the laws of physics will not change.
3 can be answered easily by models with two poles I think though I am not entirely clear on what you're asking.Can't have two poles, an object can only have one axis of rotation.
Even "Pale Blue Dot" from voyager 1???Not one of the craft you have listed has ever presented a "single shoot," raw image of the Earth.You are an imbecile.
The ISS at its altitude is incapable of encapsulating the entire Earth in a single photo image.
And you're a dumbass. I never said the ISS was able to photograph the entire Earth in a single photo image. However the crew aboard Apollo did and there are several satellites that also have.
All the listed craft below have taken single photo images or video that shows the entire Earth. But let me guess they are all fake and part of the NASA conspiracy right...
Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (Suomi NPP) spacecraft
Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR)
Rosetta spacecraft
Apollo 17
Apollo 11
Apollo 10
Apollo 8
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter
Lunar Orbiter 1
China National Space Administration's lunar probe
Clementine 1
Mariner 10
Galileo
NEAR spacecraft
Voyager 1
Mars Express
Mars Odyssey
Juno spacecraft
Spirit Mars Exploration Rover
Cassini
SELENE/Kaguya
https://www.sciencealert.com/25-of-the-most-iconic-images-of-earth-ever-taken-from-space
Period.
Every single image presented to the public has been altered in some form or fashion.
Also, we should probably split this math stuff out to the philosophy forums, or at least its own thread. Agreed?Agreed.
I'm unfamiliar with Archimedean in this context.The name isn't confusing unless you use it inconsistently. It sounds like your concern is that it is not Archimedean. Is this right?Can I get a response for this. Mainly for the point about 1.999...9968So its okay to break the rules when it suits you, or convention?It's not breaking the rules. When you prove stuff about ramanujan summation you never say it is also true for normal summation, unless you have a proof that it is the case. And a correct mathematician will not go around claiming that ramanujan summation is the same thing as summation, unlike Numberphile did...
So, show me that 0.999... exists in reality, and I'll concede 1.999...9923 is invalid due to it not being valid for giving directions across a pond.
You are right that existing in reality has nothing to do with maths. The problem here is getting different mathematical objects confused because they have similar names/notations.
As I said earlier, meaning an infinite number of digits by... either means you are no longer using real numbers, or it's a redundant notation as it adds no information.
0.0000...01 is 10^(-infinity), which depending on what you mean by to the power of -infinity, is either zero (if it is shorthand for a limit) or an infinitesimal(if infinity is a member of your new number system). If it's zero, then the part "after infinity" is redundant, it's just adding 0. If it's an infinitesimal, then you aren't representing a real number.
So 1.999...9923 is either not a real number, or is the same as 1.999... . Either way, is means 1.999...9923 is not a real number between 2 and 1.999..., because it's either equal to 1.999..., or it's not a real number.
Whenever I say real number, I mean a member of the unique complete totally ordered field (up to isomorphism), not that it is a reality number. Thanks of the confusing name René.
Wow....what is the point. Sceptimatic would maintain blank was indeed white if it happened to fit in with his entrenched way of how he imagines the world works.Agreed
We would be infinite fractions of infinity.Can I get a response for this. Mainly for the point about 1.999...9968So its okay to break the rules when it suits you, or convention?It's not breaking the rules. When you prove stuff about ramanujan summation you never say it is also true for normal summation, unless you have a proof that it is the case. And a correct mathematician will not go around claiming that ramanujan summation is the same thing as summation, unlike Numberphile did...
So, show me that 0.999... exists in reality, and I'll concede 1.999...9923 is invalid due to it not being valid for giving directions across a pond.
You are right that existing in reality has nothing to do with maths. The problem here is getting different mathematical objects confused because they have similar names/notations.
As I said earlier, meaning an infinite number of digits by... either means you are no longer using real numbers, or it's a redundant notation as it adds no information.
0.0000...01 is 10^(-infinity), which depending on what you mean by to the power of -infinity, is either zero (if it is shorthand for a limit) or an infinitesimal(if infinity is a member of your new number system). If it's zero, then the part "after infinity" is redundant, it's just adding 0. If it's an infinitesimal, then you aren't representing a real number.
So 1.999...9923 is either not a real number, or is the same as 1.999... . Either way, is means 1.999...9923 is not a real number between 2 and 1.999..., because it's either equal to 1.999..., or it's not a real number.
Whenever I say real number, I mean a member of the unique complete totally ordered field (up to isomorphism), not that it is a reality number. Thanks of the confusing name René.
If the universe turns out to be infinite, that means we're all fractions of infinity, so we are all infinite. WE ARE ALL ALL.
Does that answer your question?
Can I get a response for this. Mainly for the point about 1.999...9968So its okay to break the rules when it suits you, or convention?It's not breaking the rules. When you prove stuff about ramanujan summation you never say it is also true for normal summation, unless you have a proof that it is the case. And a correct mathematician will not go around claiming that ramanujan summation is the same thing as summation, unlike Numberphile did...
So, show me that 0.999... exists in reality, and I'll concede 1.999...9923 is invalid due to it not being valid for giving directions across a pond.
You are right that existing in reality has nothing to do with maths. The problem here is getting different mathematical objects confused because they have similar names/notations.
As I said earlier, meaning an infinite number of digits by... either means you are no longer using real numbers, or it's a redundant notation as it adds no information.
0.0000...01 is 10^(-infinity), which depending on what you mean by to the power of -infinity, is either zero (if it is shorthand for a limit) or an infinitesimal(if infinity is a member of your new number system). If it's zero, then the part "after infinity" is redundant, it's just adding 0. If it's an infinitesimal, then you aren't representing a real number.
So 1.999...9923 is either not a real number, or is the same as 1.999... . Either way, is means 1.999...9923 is not a real number between 2 and 1.999..., because it's either equal to 1.999..., or it's not a real number.
Whenever I say real number, I mean a member of the unique complete totally ordered field (up to isomorphism), not that it is a reality number. Thanks of the confusing name René.
I agree with JackBlack.The operations are only logical for finding the Ramanujan sum, not the actual sum. The sum of a series is defined as the limit of it's partial sums, you can prove that -1/12 is not the sum.
Any inverse squared law can be reformulated in a way similar to Gauss' Flux Theorem or what is commonly known as Gauss' law. This leads to Gauss' law of magnetism and of gravity.
I believe the rest of his points stand pretty well too.
Glad that's sorted. I do disagree though that the sum of all nat numbers = -1/12 isn't 'logical' as it follows from logical operations on the series. It also isn't completely irrelevant to 'math that attempts to describe reality' as that is its most recent origins - in string theory. Non-intuitive? Perhaps.
Haven't I shown the problem with 1.999...9923 here?So its okay to break the rules when it suits you, or convention?It's not breaking the rules. When you prove stuff about ramanujan summation you never say it is also true for normal summation, unless you have a proof that it is the case. And a correct mathematician will not go around claiming that ramanujan summation is the same thing as summation, unlike Numberphile did...
So, show me that 0.999... exists in reality, and I'll concede 1.999...9923 is invalid due to it not being valid for giving directions across a pond.
You are right that existing in reality has nothing to do with maths. The problem here is getting different mathematical objects confused because they have similar names/notations.
As I said earlier, meaning an infinite number of digits by... either means you are no longer using real numbers, or it's a redundant notation as it adds no information.
0.0000...01 is 10^(-infinity), which depending on what you mean by to the power of -infinity, is either zero (if it is shorthand for a limit) or an infinitesimal(if infinity is a member of your new number system). If it's zero, then the part "after infinity" is redundant, it's just adding 0. If it's an infinitesimal, then you aren't representing a real number.
So 1.999...9923 is either not a real number, or is the same as 1.999... . Either way, is means 1.999...9923 is not a real number between 2 and 1.999..., because it's either equal to 1.999..., or it's not a real number.
Whenever I say real number, I mean a member of the unique complete totally ordered field (up to isomorphism), not that it is a reality number. Thanks of the confusing name René.
Yes to allAcceleration is the measurement of how quickly velocity is changing.It will have higher velocity not higher acceleration.
If your velocity is increasing rapidly it will have a higher acceleration than if your velocity was increasing slowly.
This is the most basic of concepts.
Acceleration is simply that no matter what you try and add to make it something else.
When car manufacturers claim acceleration figures are they lying? Do all cars accelerate at the same rate? And irrespective of how far the throttle is opened?
Consider an object moving on a line. After t seconds it is t^3 meters away from where it started.Acceleration is the measurement of how quickly velocity is changing.It will have higher velocity not higher acceleration.
If your velocity is increasing rapidly it will have a higher acceleration than if your velocity was increasing slowly.
This is the most basic of concepts.
Acceleration is simply that no matter what you try and add to make it something else.
tldr: They is no such thing as differentiation.I'm not arguing about what jerk is in itself. I'm simply telling you that jerk immediately shuts down acceleration to deceleration before acceleration begins again.There really is - look up how engineers have to design roller coasters. They have to get the level of jerk right - too much and they will cause whiplash.FYIThere isn't a change in acceleration.
Jerk is used by designers of roller coasters. It is the change in acceleration that gives you the buzz of adrenaline on rides like this.Engineers generate thrill through acceleration—basically changing riders’ velocity in highly engineered, unnatural ways.Changing velocity does not change acceleration.
Acceleration will always be acceleration until it becomes something other than, like deceleration or a constant velocity.Coaster engineers call upon Newton's laws of motion to get riders to feel the combined forces of gravity and acceleration, which produces an exciting, unusual body feel. Loops, corkscrews, and tight turns force riders' bodies vertically and horizontally in calculated ways.No such thing as gravity.
Acceleration is fine and acceleration easing to decelerating easing and back to accelerating easing is also fine.
You can always change velocity but you can never ever change acceleration, no matter what.Ever wonder why loops are teardrop shaped, rather than circular? “The challenge is designing the transitions into and out of the loop," Rhoads says. "You need to make sure that you're not inducing jerk,” or changes in acceleration that can lead to whiplash. Anything moving in a circular motion experiences another kind of acceleration called centripetal acceleration, which increases the faster the car goes, or the smaller the circle is. A circular loop would cause a jolt from the sudden addition of the centripetal acceleration. A teardrop shape controls that acceleration, easing the rider through the loop and preventing jerk.http://www.travelandleisure.com/attractions/amusement-parks/roller-coaster-physics
It doesn't matter. You either accelerate or you don't.
If you go faster you change your velocity and if you go slower you change your velocity.
If you continue to build up speed then you are accelerating.
If you cease to accelerate you either become constant with a set applied energy or you decelerate by release of it.
Simple enough and all what's applied to everything...including your rollercoaster.Do you want to tell someone who actually builds roller coasters for a living that they are completely wrong?What are they doing wrong?
They're just doing what I've said.That changes in acceleration don't exist, and therefore they shouldn't worry about snapping the necks of their passengers?But changes in acceleration do not exist.
Changes in velocity exist.
Take some time to think on it.
So its okay to break the rules when it suits you, or convention?It's not breaking the rules. When you prove stuff about ramanujan summation you never say it is also true for normal summation, unless you have a proof that it is the case. And a correct mathematician will not go around claiming that ramanujan summation is the same thing as summation, unlike Numberphile did...
So, show me that 0.999... exists in reality, and I'll concede 1.999...9923 is invalid due to it not being valid for giving directions across a pond.
