Explain me these two words

  • 133 Replies
  • 31468 Views
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #90 on: September 17, 2008, 08:25:20 PM »
This is for RobbyJ

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu5yAs9FIggkANVJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDhrMzdqBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=12o4sfeqp/EXP=1221788928/**http%3a//www.studyphysics.ca/2007/20/01_kinematics/10_acceleration.pdf

Quote
Example 3: Once you have been arrested, the officials start rolling the pickle back towards the starting
line so that Haans van der Winkle, the current champion from the Netherlands, can have a second try.
After pushing for 8.8s, they get the pickle rolling backwards (towards the startng line) at 4.31m/s.
                                                                                  i
Determine the acceleration of the pickle.
        In this example, they cause an object to speed up, but it’s moving in the opposite direction. Since
        velocity is a vector, we can just put a minus sign in front of its speed and say that it is moving in
the negative direction.

Yes, in an arbitrary coordinate system when considering one component of the object's motion. You don't mean to tell me that you think there is some absolute definition of what constitutes a positive direction, do you?

I'm not following...

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #91 on: September 17, 2008, 08:29:13 PM »
I'm not following...

You wouldn't be, would you?

Okay, let's start from the beginning: what would you define a negative acceleration to be?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #92 on: September 18, 2008, 08:38:50 AM »
I'm not following...

You wouldn't be, would you?

Okay, let's start from the beginning: what would you define a negative acceleration to be?

Decellerating mainly, but it could also be facing one direction, but going backwards, in theory.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #93 on: September 18, 2008, 09:25:32 AM »
Decellerating mainly, but it could also be facing one direction, but going backwards, in theory.

Now, what would you define "decelerating" and "backwards" to be?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #94 on: September 18, 2008, 04:58:13 PM »
Decellerating mainly, but it could also be facing one direction, but going backwards, in theory.

Now, what would you define "decelerating" and "backwards" to be?

Eh, an example of decellerating could be using the break in a car, and I've already explained the going backwards thing about 4 times.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #95 on: September 18, 2008, 05:00:31 PM »
Eh, an example of decellerating could be using the break in a car, and I've already explained the going backwards thing about 4 times.

A car that doesn't work any more is decelerating. Interesting.

And no, you haven't. Not in absolute terms, anyway.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #96 on: September 18, 2008, 05:05:03 PM »
This argument again?  Why is it that people can't understand negative velocity and acceleration are used to show direction all the time? 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #97 on: September 18, 2008, 05:07:25 PM »
This argument again?  Why is it that people can't understand negative velocity and acceleration are used to show direction all the time? 

This is coming from the guy who thinks that 1 = -1. I'm not taking any tips on negatives from you, thanks.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #98 on: September 18, 2008, 05:08:58 PM »
This argument again?  Why is it that people can't understand negative velocity and acceleration are used to show direction all the time? 

This is coming from the guy who thinks that 1 = -1. I'm not taking any tips on negatives from you, thanks.

I don't believe that.  I never did. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #99 on: September 18, 2008, 05:10:47 PM »
1kg*1m/s=-1kg*1m/s

Are you saying that is wrong?   
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #100 on: September 18, 2008, 05:14:47 PM »
1kg*1m/s=-1kg*1m/s

Are you saying that is wrong?   

I'm saying it's wrong.  I already know what I did and I already explained it last time it was brought up. 

Funny thing is, that equation uses a negative velocity.  Kinda makes you look stupid. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #101 on: September 18, 2008, 05:20:12 PM »
1kg*1m/s=-1kg*1m/s

Are you saying that is wrong?   

I'm saying it's wrong.  I already know what I did and I already explained it last time it was brought up. 

Funny thing is, that equation uses a negative velocity.  Kinda makes you look stupid. 
That is actually a speed. Not a velocity.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #102 on: September 18, 2008, 05:26:21 PM »
Funny thing is, that equation uses a negative velocity.  Kinda makes you look stupid. 

No, it uses a velocity which, when represented in an arbitrary coordinate system, has a negative sign. That does not make it a negative velocity. If you reversed the coordinate system, the other velocity would become negative.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #103 on: September 18, 2008, 05:27:24 PM »
Doesn't a velocity have a direction?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #104 on: September 18, 2008, 05:31:01 PM »
Doesn't a velocity have a direction?

Yes, but if the directions of all velocities in a certain situation are parallel or differ by π, their direction may be represented as either +1 or -1.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #105 on: September 18, 2008, 05:37:28 PM »
1kg*1m/s=-1kg*1m/s

Are you saying that is wrong?   

I'm saying it's wrong.  I already know what I did and I already explained it last time it was brought up. 

Funny thing is, that equation uses a negative velocity.  Kinda makes you look stupid. 
That is actually a speed. Not a velocity.

Except it is a velocity as it has a direction.  v is used for velocity. 
Funny thing is, that equation uses a negative velocity.  Kinda makes you look stupid. 

No, it uses a velocity which, when represented in an arbitrary coordinate system, has a negative sign. That does not make it a negative velocity. If you reversed the coordinate system, the other velocity would become negative.

Once again, negative shows direction. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #106 on: September 18, 2008, 05:40:04 PM »
Once again, negative shows direction. 

That doesn't make it a negative velocity.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #107 on: September 18, 2008, 05:43:35 PM »
Once again, negative shows direction. 

That doesn't make it a negative velocity.
Correct. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #108 on: September 18, 2008, 06:36:59 PM »
Once again, negative shows direction. 

That doesn't make it a negative velocity.
Correct. 

Wasn't that what the entire arguement was about?
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #109 on: September 18, 2008, 06:41:29 PM »
Decellerating mainly, but it could also be facing one direction, but going backwards, in theory.

Now, what would you define "decelerating" and "backwards" to be?

Eh, an example of decellerating could be using the break in a car, and I've already explained the going backwards thing about 4 times.

Going backwards is not decelerating.  You are continually increasing speed, just in the opposite direction.

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #110 on: September 18, 2008, 11:40:58 PM »
I can't wrap my head around your constant acceleration model. What is it going about a trillion google billion google miles per second by now? I do know it breaks causality, even given your FAQ explanation.

Learn about adding speeds with relativity. The constant acceleration of 9.8m/s2 is only from our frame of reference. We don't have any meaningful velocity.
Doesn't the earth, heavens, and everything else in our reference frame need to be accelerating either towards or away from something though? If there's nothing else in our reference frame than those points I mentioned, and those points mentioned don't have any meaningful velocity, how can they have meaningful acceleration? Don't you need another point of reference for that?


I had another argument with a weather balloon that went up to the edge of the atmosphere planned, but it finally sunk in what you've all been hammering into me. It was my assumption that things on the UA-FE would share the upward acceleration of the Earth. That's not the case right?

Some things like the galaxies near us, the sun, the moon, the stars, the planets and other stellar bodies, and all their associated gears share the UA of the FE, right? It's just the little things that touch the earth, like water, air, rocks, and people that are just along for the ride.



I can understand that now, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Why some bodies are influenced by whatever force is doing the upward accelerating, and others aren't is vague, or I missed it in my reading. I want to clarify a few things before I make any assertions.

Are smaller bodies less influenced by the UA and larger bodies more influenced?

Are the bodies resting on the earth intrinsically different from the earth in some way that could be realistically measured? The earths crust can be said to be mostly rock, but if I pick up a rock, does it take on properties different from the crustal earth that my lifting removed it from?

I'll wait for some citation from FE or RE proponents before arguing this further though, since I missed the point so horribly in my last posts. The argument I'm looking for is why UA would affect the things above us, and the things below us, but not affect the things within that frame of reference.
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #111 on: September 19, 2008, 01:08:59 AM »
1kg*1m/s=-1kg*1m/s

Are you saying that is wrong?   
I'm saying it's wrong.  I already know what I did and I already explained it last time it was brought up. 

Funny thing is, that equation uses a negative velocity.  Kinda makes you look stupid. 
Then you should write it as -1m/s next time.

1kg*1m/s=-1kg*1m/s    WRONG

1kg*1m/s=-1kg*-1m/s   RIGHT

« Last Edit: September 19, 2008, 02:46:35 AM by E.Jack »

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #112 on: September 19, 2008, 01:21:03 AM »
1kg*1m/s=-1kg*1m/s

Are you saying that is wrong?   
I'm saying it's wrong.  I already know what I did and I already explained it last time it was brought up. 

Funny thing is, that equation uses a negative velocity.  Kinda makes you look stupid. 
Then you should either put in brackets or write it as -1m/s next time.

1kg*1m/s=-1kg*1m/s    WRONG

1kg*1m/s=-1kg*-1m/s   RIGHT

1kg*1m/s=-(1kg*1m/s)  RIGHT




I'd been thinking about intervening but E.Jack beat me to it. Quoted for truth.
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #113 on: September 19, 2008, 01:59:15 AM »


I can understand that now, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Why some bodies are influenced by whatever force is doing the upward accelerating, and others aren't is vague, or I missed it in my reading. I want to clarify a few things before I make any assertions.

Are smaller bodies less influenced by the UA and larger bodies more influenced?

Are the bodies resting on the earth intrinsically different from the earth in some way that could be realistically measured? The earths crust can be said to be mostly rock, but if I pick up a rock, does it take on properties different from the crustal earth that my lifting removed it from?

I'll wait for some citation from FE or RE proponents before arguing this further though, since I missed the point so horribly in my last posts. The argument I'm looking for is why UA would affect the things above us, and the things below us, but not affect the things within that frame of reference.
The DEF shields us from the effects (UA) of Dark Energy. The sun and moon is hovering above the DEF. The DEF holds our atmolayer.

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #114 on: September 19, 2008, 02:25:56 AM »
DEF? dark energy field?

Dark matter can not only be matter but a field as well?

It's my assertion that in RET dark matter is just the matter that scientists can't see and refuse to acknowledge. Scientists speculated about dark matter most notably when they refused to consider that other systems might have planets and dynamics similar to our own... It's been proven that other systems have planets. If you gave all other solar bodies their expected approximate planetary masses and Oort type clouds, and counted unseen gas masses the weight of our universe almost exceeds those of the formulas that required dark matter. They seriously never considered that the universe might have matter they couldn't see.
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #115 on: September 19, 2008, 02:37:37 AM »
1kg*1m/s=-(1kg*1m/s)  RIGHT

Why is this one correct? Aren't the parentheses just being used as grouping symbols?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #116 on: September 19, 2008, 02:37:56 AM »
DEF? dark energy field?
Yes. The idea is from TheEngineer.

Dark matter can not only be matter but a field as well?
Dark energy...

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #117 on: September 19, 2008, 02:45:57 AM »
1kg*1m/s=-(1kg*1m/s)  RIGHT

Why is this one correct? Aren't the parentheses just being used as grouping symbols?
I thought it was a plus sign ( -(1kg + 1m/s) ). Either way, it should be written as 1kg*1m/s=-1kg*-1m/s.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #118 on: September 19, 2008, 02:48:53 AM »
I thought it was a plus sign ( -(1kg + 1m/s) ). Either way, it should be written as 1kg*1m/s=-1kg*-1m/s.

lol @ adding together two different units. But thanks for clearing that up.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #119 on: September 19, 2008, 02:51:51 AM »
DEF? dark energy field?
Yes. The idea is from TheEngineer.

Dark matter can not only be matter but a field as well?
Dark energy...

Can you cite any reference for a "dark energy field" that extends beyond this site? Lacking that can you cite what "TheEngineer" said that made you a believer of his dark energy theory? I doubt it could sway me, but I'm curious what sways a person such as yourself.
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.