Re: Fictitious Forces

Apparently I am fooling you, though:

Quote from: TheEngineer on March 13, 2008, 10:15:00 AM

The famous e=mc^2 equation: Look at the full equation, the one that does not assume an object is at rest.

Wow, it must suck to be you right now.

E= gamma mc^2 is also the equation.  Plus there is many more equations dealing with moving objects and mass. 


Right here

Quote from: sokarul on March 17, 2008, 07:39:24 PM

E=pc is only for massless particles.  How many other massless particles do you know of?  Or is your physics so shitty you didn't realize this? 

E=pc is for all particles, massless or otherwise.  When you multiply momentum by the speed of light, you get units of energy. 


So how about that explanation?

You claim E=pc can be used for particles with mass.     

E= gamma mc^2 is also the equation.  Plus there is many more equations dealing with moving objects and mass. 

And the relevance to our discussion would be...?

You claim E=pc can be used for particles with mass.

Yes, yes I do.  You don't? 

I would love to see you justify that.

Quote from: sokarul on March 18, 2008, 01:43:40 PM

E= gamma mc^2 is also the equation.  Plus there is many more equations dealing with moving objects and mass. 

And the relevance to our discussion would be...?

Bold

Yes, yes I do.  You don't? 

I would love to see you justify that.

I don't.  But then again, I want the right answer.  I add the rest mass to it. 

Quote from: TheEngineer on March 18, 2008, 05:18:30 PM

Quote from: sokarul on March 18, 2008, 01:43:40 PM

E= gamma mc^2 is also the equation.  Plus there is many more equations dealing with moving objects and mass. 

And the relevance to our discussion would be...?

Bold 

The bold part does not in any way explain the relevance to our discussion. 

I don't.

So then please justify how momentum times the speed of light does not equal energy when objects with mass are considered.

Quote from: sokarul on March 18, 2008, 09:13:23 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on March 18, 2008, 05:18:30 PM

Quote from: sokarul on March 18, 2008, 01:43:40 PM

E= gamma mc^2 is also the equation.  Plus there is many more equations dealing with moving objects and mass. 

And the relevance to our discussion would be...?

Bold 

The bold part does not in any way explain the relevance to our discussion. 

If you don't want an answer don't ask a question.  E=gamma mc^2 deals with moving objects wheather you like it or not. 

I don't.

So then please justify how momentum times the speed of light does not equal energy when objects with mass are considered.
[/quote]
I never said E=pc does not give energy, stop making shit up.   

If you don't want an answer don't ask a question.   

Which would be why I...asked a question.   

  E=gamma mc^2 deals with moving objects wheather you like it or not. 

When did I say otherwise?

I never said E=pc does not give energy, stop making shit up.

You said it did not apply to objects with mass.  Now, again, 'stand by your statement'.

Quote from: sokarul on March 19, 2008, 12:41:46 PM

If you don't want an answer don't ask a question.   

Which would be why I...asked a question. 

Then don't cry when you get an answer you don't like.    

  E=gamma mc^2 deals with moving objects wheather you like it or not. 

When did I say otherwise?[/quote]
When you asked what this equation had to do with anything. 

You said it did not apply to objects with mass.  Now, again, 'stand by your statement'.

E=pc will not give the right answer.  It's only half the equation.  It also allows for a negative answer.  I have already posted the right equation.  Now, does your pseudoengineering degree understand this? 

Then don't cry when you get an answer you don't like.   

It would be nice if your answers were actually relevant.

When you asked what this equation had to do with anything. 

I asked what it had to do with our discussion.  You have yet to answer that.

E=pc will not give the right answer.  It's only half the equation.  It also allows for a negative answer.  I have already posted the right equation.  Now, does your pseudoengineering degree understand this?

But you said that it did not apply to objects with mass...

It would be nice if your answers were actually relevant.

Like I said, it was an answer.

I asked what it had to do with our discussion.  You have yet to answer that.

Becasue it was right in your face. 

But you said that it did not apply to objects with mass...

Because it doesn't.  E=pc is a variation of an equation when a particle has no mass. 

As usual, TheEngineer is more content to mince words, point out typos, and make sarcastic and ambiguous responses rather than actually answer any questions in a direct and complete manner. Even if he's correct, it doesn't change the fact that he's only making the argument more drawn out and difficult to follow.

As usual, TheEngineer is more content to mince words, point out typos, and make sarcastic and ambiguous responses rather than actually answering any questions in a direct and complete manner. Even if he's correct, it doesn't change the fact that he's only making the argument more drawn out and difficult to follow.

They both are.  They both know what they are doing.

And that makes it okay? I'm sick of threads getting derailed in this manner. It'd be a lot easier to carry on a discussion if more people bothered putting down a complete response in their reply rather than some smart-ass, off-the-cuff retort.

And that makes it okay? I'm sick of threads getting derailed in this manner. It'd be a lot easier to carry on a discussion if more people bothered putting down a complete response in their reply rather than some smart-ass, off-the-cuff retort.

No, it doesn't.  Did I say it did?  Or was that some smart-ass, off-the-cuff retort?

And that makes it okay? I'm sick of threads getting derailed in this manner. It'd be a lot easier to carry on a discussion if more people bothered putting down a complete response in their reply rather than some smart-ass, off-the-cuff retort.

You have been here to days and you are tired of threads being derailed?  Let me point something out to you.  This forum is worthless. 

Because it doesn't.

Like I've asked a few times now: back up your statement.

Quote from: sokarul on March 19, 2008, 09:34:46 PM

Because it doesn't.

Like I've asked a few times now: back up your statement.

Ok
E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4
Set mass to zero
E^2=p^2c^2+0
Set mass to any positive non zero
E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4
Any questions? 

Set mass to any positive non zero
E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4
Any questions? 

Yes.  You just said E=pc does not apply to objects with mass.  Yet, you have it right there in your equation.  Make up your mind, please.

Quote from: sokarul on March 19, 2008, 10:39:19 PM

Set mass to any positive non zero
E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4
Any questions? 

Yes.  You just said E=pc does not apply to objects with mass.  Yet, you have it right there in your equation.  Make up your mind, please.

I said E=pc does not give your the correct answer for objects with mass.  No matter how you try and twist my words around you still lose. 
E=pc is not the equation for particles with mass.  Its not even a full equation.  I actually wouldn't use it for particles without mass either, I would use a different equation.  I don't often need the momentum of a massless particle. 

Added: another answer
E=pc does not equal E^2=p^2c^2 let alone E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4.

Its not even a full equation. 

How is it not a "full equation"?

Quote from: sokarul on March 19, 2008, 10:56:13 PM

Its not even a full equation. 

How is it not a "full equation"?

Because the equation is
E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4
Understand?   

Quote from: Username on March 19, 2008, 11:04:40 PM

Quote from: sokarul on March 19, 2008, 10:56:13 PM

Its not even a full equation. 

How is it not a "full equation"?

Because the equation is
E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4
Understand?   

E=pc is still a full equation.

Understand?

Added: another answer
E=pc does not equal E^2=p^2c^2 let alone E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4.

I never said it did.  Yet, you had to interject your meaningless banter.  Please learn to read.

Quote from: silverhammermba on March 19, 2008, 10:09:33 PM

And that makes it okay? I'm sick of threads getting derailed in this manner. It'd be a lot easier to carry on a discussion if more people bothered putting down a complete response in their reply rather than some smart-ass, off-the-cuff retort.

You have been here to days and you are tired of threads being derailed?  Let me point something out to you.  This forum is worthless. 

And yet, here you are! WOW...

HAY guys what's goin on?

the same thing that goes on every day Pinky. Engy and Sok argue over something thats not worth arguing over and don't pay me enough attention

Don't worry, I'm here now.

Quote from: sokarul on March 19, 2008, 10:39:19 PM

Set mass to any positive non zero
E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4
Any questions? 

Yes.  You just said E=pc does not apply to objects with mass.  Yet, you have it right there in your equation.  Make up your mind, please.

Quote from: sokarul on March 19, 2008, 10:56:13 PM

Added: another answer
E=pc does not equal E^2=p^2c^2 let alone E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4.

I never said it did.  Yet, you had to interject your meaningless banter.  Please learn to read.

You most certainly did. 

Don't worry, I'm here now.

Well that makes me feel better

You most certainly did. 

Show me.  Oh, wait, you're making shit up again, aren't you?

Quote from: sokarul on March 20, 2008, 07:47:55 AM

You most certainly did. 

Show me.  Oh, wait, you're making shit up again, aren't you?

Quote from: sokarul on March 19, 2008, 10:39:19 PM

Set mass to any positive non zero
E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4
Any questions? 

Yes.  You just said E=pc does not apply to objects with mass.  Yet, you have it right there in your equation.  Make up your mind, please.

The bold part.  You are claiming its in my equation. 

Quote from: sokarul on March 19, 2008, 11:08:45 PM

Quote from: Username on March 19, 2008, 11:04:40 PM

Quote from: sokarul on March 19, 2008, 10:56:13 PM

Its not even a full equation. 

How is it not a "full equation"?

Because the equation is
E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4
Understand?   

E=pc is still a full equation.

Understand?

Its still only part, despite what you say.