« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

acceleration

  • 27 Replies
  • 5887 Views
*

spanner34.5

  • 4639
  • +0/-0
  • feck arse drink
acceleration
« on: March 03, 2009, 07:20:14 AM »
Does anyone agree that it is possible that the flat earth is in fact travelling downwards with a deceleration equating to 1G?. One day then it will reach a speed of 0 then accelerate upwards at 1g.

How do we actually know we are in the acceleration phase  right now?
Logged
My I.Q. is 85. Or was it 58?
?

user99

  • 282
  • +0/-0
Re: acceleration
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2009, 08:11:16 AM »
Quote from: spanner34.5 on March 03, 2009, 07:20:14 AM
Does anyone agree that it is possible that the flat earth is in fact travelling downwards with a deceleration equating to 1G?. One day then it will reach a speed of 0 then accelerate upwards at 1g.

How do we actually know we are in the acceleration phase  right now?

Sounds just as plausible as accelerating up.
Logged
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: acceleration
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2009, 12:23:50 AM »
Quote from: spanner34.5 on March 03, 2009, 07:20:14 AM
Does anyone agree that it is possible that the flat earth is in fact travelling downwards with a deceleration equating to 1G?. One day then it will reach a speed of 0 then accelerate upwards at 1g.

How do we actually know we are in the acceleration phase  right now?

Decelerating 'down', and accelerating 'up' are equivalent.
We could be continuously moving 'down' while accelerating 'up'. Either way, it's irrelevant.
Logged
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.
?

MayTheBetterModelWin

  • 656
  • +0/-0
Re: acceleration
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2009, 12:57:59 AM »
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 04, 2009, 12:23:50 AM
Quote from: spanner34.5 on March 03, 2009, 07:20:14 AM
Does anyone agree that it is possible that the flat earth is in fact travelling downwards with a deceleration equating to 1G?. One day then it will reach a speed of 0 then accelerate upwards at 1g.

How do we actually know we are in the acceleration phase  right now?

Decelerating 'down', and accelerating 'up' are equivalent.
We could be continuously moving 'down' while accelerating 'up'. Either way, it's irrelevant.
Well more accurately, motion is relative, so it just depends on the velocity of the off-FE observer. Since all off-FE observers are hypothetical. it's just a mind game.
Logged
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: acceleration
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2009, 06:36:04 AM »
Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 04, 2009, 12:57:59 AM
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 04, 2009, 12:23:50 AM
Decelerating 'down', and accelerating 'up' are equivalent.
We could be continuously moving 'down' while accelerating 'up'. Either way, it's irrelevant.
Well more accurately, motion is relative.
Yeah, I decided to stress the somewhat arbitrary directions with parenthesis to simplify the concept. 'Up' really isn't a direction but I didn't want to start off by trying to explain reference frames.  :)
Logged
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.
?

MayTheBetterModelWin

  • 656
  • +0/-0
Re: acceleration
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2009, 06:42:07 AM »
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 04, 2009, 06:36:04 AM
Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 04, 2009, 12:57:59 AM
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 04, 2009, 12:23:50 AM
Decelerating 'down', and accelerating 'up' are equivalent.
We could be continuously moving 'down' while accelerating 'up'. Either way, it's irrelevant.
Well more accurately, motion is relative.
Yeah, I decided to stress the somewhat arbitrary directions with parenthesis to simplify the concept. 'Up' really isn't a direction but I didn't want to start off by trying to explain reference frames.  :)
Understood and appreciated.
Logged
?

MayTheBetterModelWin

  • 656
  • +0/-0
Re: acceleration
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2009, 07:50:30 AM »
Quote from: mendoza on March 04, 2009, 07:43:16 AM
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 04, 2009, 12:23:50 AM
Quote from: spanner34.5 on March 03, 2009, 07:20:14 AM
Does anyone agree that it is possible that the flat earth is in fact travelling downwards with a deceleration equating to 1G?. One day then it will reach a speed of 0 then accelerate upwards at 1g.

How do we actually know we are in the acceleration phase  right now?

Decelerating 'down', and accelerating 'up' are equivalent.
We could be continuously moving 'down' while accelerating 'up'. Either way, it's irrelevant.

How can the FES say we are accelerating up? How are they able to distinguish between accelerating up and decelerating down?
Speaking here only as a REer...

FET defines 'up' as away from the FE and the direction of the UA's acceleration. So it wins the first part of your question.

In physics, it's meaningless to try to distinguish between accelerating up and decelerating down. Both phrase mean exactly the same thing. So it wins the second part of your question.

Another victory for FE! (not that I'm worried.)
Logged
?

MayTheBetterModelWin

  • 656
  • +0/-0
Re: acceleration
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2009, 08:53:49 AM »
Quote from: mendoza on March 04, 2009, 08:30:25 AM
Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 04, 2009, 07:50:30 AM
In physics, it's meaningless to try to distinguish between accelerating up and decelerating down. Both phrase mean exactly the same thing. So it wins the second part of your question.

What's all this "win"? How old are you?

Anyway, I pray to God you never get behind the wheel of a car.
First, please review the rules of the Forum. You should not insult people here. You might want to do some introspection on maturity and name-calling.

Next, you'll find 'win' in the vernacular of many theoretical debates. It's all meant in the spirit in, and the fun of, the pursuit of the truth.

Finally, I'm so old that you might be right with your concern of my driving abilities.
Logged
?

Dr Matrix

  • 4308
  • +0/-0
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: acceleration
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2009, 03:20:23 PM »
Or for when a twat like you gets pwned in the face, perhaps.
Logged
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
?

Dr Matrix

  • 4308
  • +0/-0
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: acceleration
« Reply #9 on: March 04, 2009, 03:23:23 PM »
Quote from: mendoza on March 04, 2009, 03:18:11 PM
It's chan speak for when sad, lonely girls post pictures of their tits.

You might want to think twice before reporting people for personal insults when you instigated said activity.

Basically, grow up and it won't happen.
Logged
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
?

Ravenwood240

  • 2070
  • +0/-0
  • I disagree. What was the Question?
Re: acceleration
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2009, 03:28:58 PM »
Quote from: spanner34.5 on March 03, 2009, 07:20:14 AM
Does anyone agree that it is possible that the flat earth is in fact travelling downwards with a deceleration equating to 1G?. One day then it will reach a speed of 0 then accelerate upwards at 1g.

How do we actually know we are in the acceleration phase  right now?



Search for the theory of the UA, check the math and show your work allowing it to become a decreasing force.

And then you might want to consider growing up.
Logged
Belief gets in the way of learning.  If you believe something, you've closed your mind to any further thought.  I know some things, little things, not the nine million names of God.

(Paraphased from R.A. Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love.")
?

Dr Matrix

  • 4308
  • +0/-0
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: acceleration
« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2009, 03:31:15 PM »
So the fact that you directly said that he was equivalent to a sad girl posting pics of her tits on the net doesn't qualify as an unprovoked personal insult?  Interesting set of double standards you have there.

I don't apologise, since I felt that you were acting like a bit of a twat and told you so, thereby doing the right thing at the time, in my estimation.  The fact that you did the equivalent of running to the dinner lady on the playground rather than providing evidence or opinion to the contrary only further supports my case.
Logged
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
?

Ravenwood240

  • 2070
  • +0/-0
  • I disagree. What was the Question?
Re: acceleration
« Reply #12 on: March 04, 2009, 03:35:02 PM »
Quote from: mendoza on March 04, 2009, 03:30:20 PM
Is there any math for the UA?!?! I coudlnt find one.

Somewhere in the older posts.  I remember seeing it, but don't remember the name of the thread.

But yes, there is math.  I think, I am not certain, but they were claiming that it was something Einstein had done.  Meh, not that important to me, I don't do that sort of math.  Engy or Singularity might know more about it.
Logged
Belief gets in the way of learning.  If you believe something, you've closed your mind to any further thought.  I know some things, little things, not the nine million names of God.

(Paraphased from R.A. Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love.")
?

Dr Matrix

  • 4308
  • +0/-0
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: acceleration
« Reply #13 on: March 04, 2009, 03:36:33 PM »
If it was not intended as an insult then why the negative connotation?
Logged
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
?

Dr Matrix

  • 4308
  • +0/-0
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: acceleration
« Reply #14 on: March 04, 2009, 03:47:58 PM »
I understand the difference, I just think you were trying to make him feel like shit for saying something you thought was stupid.  Admittedly, that's exactly what I did afterwards in response, so I'm no better really.
Logged
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
?

Dr Matrix

  • 4308
  • +0/-0
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: acceleration
« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2009, 03:51:22 PM »
I didn't apologise, I just said I was no better.
Logged
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
?

MayTheBetterModelWin

  • 656
  • +0/-0
Re: acceleration
« Reply #16 on: March 04, 2009, 09:07:04 PM »
Quote from: mendoza on March 04, 2009, 03:18:11 PM
Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 04, 2009, 08:53:49 AM
First, please review the rules of the Forum. You should not insult people here. You might want to do some introspection on maturity and name-calling.

There was no insult. But its clear your flesh bruises easily, like a peach.

I am genuinely concerned that you are unable to distinguish acceleration and deceleration. If this is still a concern, book a few lessons with a driving school.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 04, 2009, 08:53:49 AM
Next, you'll find 'win' in the vernacular of many theoretical debates.

Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about. Show me one serious debate (ie not a web forum) which uses "win" in your given form.

It's chan speak for when sad, lonely girls post pictures of their tits.

First, where did I say you insulted me?
Second, here the reference to presentation on the relevant topic: http://vefir.mh.is/palmagn/tokh06/Philosophy%20of%20science%20II.ppt that uses "win" exactly was I do.
Third, you should review the definition of the word "vernacular". Chan speak is vernacular. I said in the vernacular. You lose, again.
Fourth, you misrepresent (yet again) what I said. I did not say "acceleration" and "deceleration" were the same. You lose, again.
Logged
*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: acceleration
« Reply #17 on: March 04, 2009, 09:36:24 PM »
Quote from: mendoza on March 04, 2009, 03:18:11 PM
I am genuinely concerned that you are unable to distinguish acceleration and deceleration. If this is still a concern, book a few lessons with a driving school.
It's not really "deceleration", just upward or downward acceleration. In your frame of reference, both terms are equivalent. An apple accelerating down is the same thing as you accelerating up to meet the apple. However, Einstein proved that the apple isn't accelerating down due to its tendency to follow space-time geodesics. In FE, it's even simpler: the apple just undergo constant velocity the moment it leaves the hand. Thus, this leaves the only possible answer, that we are accelerating up (transformation from inertial FoR to non-inertial FoR).
Logged
*

spanner34.5

  • 4639
  • +0/-0
  • feck arse drink
Re: acceleration
« Reply #18 on: March 05, 2009, 12:49:59 AM »
Sorry to cause such turmoil, I was trying to figure out where we were in the run between a very high velocity downwards and the very high velocity upwards.

I do understand the equivalence of downwards deceleration and upward acceleration.
Logged
My I.Q. is 85. Or was it 58?
?

Dr Matrix

  • 4308
  • +0/-0
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: acceleration
« Reply #19 on: March 05, 2009, 02:53:52 PM »
There is no such thing as deceleration - that's why you're having trouble.  Acceleration describes the rate of change of velocity with time as the result of a force being applied to an object.  This is determined by the equation F = ma, where F is the force, m is the mass of the object and a is acceleration.  There is no formula for 'deceleration', since all that means is that the force is acting in the opposite direction to the way the object is moving.

In the case of FE, where there is no reliable external reference point, you can't tell which way you were moving in the first place (all you can tell is what your force-meter tells you).
Logged
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: acceleration
« Reply #20 on: March 05, 2009, 03:57:42 PM »
Quote from: mendoza on March 05, 2009, 03:34:53 PM
*facepaln* get in a car with MayTheBetterModelWin. And drive fast to wall. you will learn quickly difference before you die.
Physicists never use the term "deceleration". Since acceleration is a vector, they use terms like "acceleration +i" (e.g. 3.0m/s2 +i), "acceleration -i" (e.g. 3.0m/s2 -i), or "acceleration east" instead. For example, an object moving west and slowing down is, in layman terms, decelerating. However, in physics, it means that the object is accelerating east.
Logged
*

spanner34.5

  • 4639
  • +0/-0
  • feck arse drink
Re: acceleration
« Reply #21 on: March 06, 2009, 01:59:30 AM »
Quote from: mendoza on March 05, 2009, 04:02:42 PM
Quote from: Jack on March 05, 2009, 03:57:42 PM
Quote from: mendoza on March 05, 2009, 03:34:53 PM
*facepaln* get in a car with MayTheBetterModelWin. And drive fast to wall. you will learn quickly difference before you die.
Physicists never use the term "deceleration". Since acceleration is a vector, they use terms like "acceleration +i" (e.g. 3.0m/s2 +i), "acceleration -i" (e.g. 3.0m/s2 -i), or "acceleration east" instead. For example, an object moving west and slowing down is, in layman terms, decelerating. However, in physics, it means that the object is accelerating east.

yes you are right it is right for physicists to distinguish between acceleration and deceleration (with + or - sign) as you say
Many readers of this may not be physicists, so using terms anyone may understand, even if technically incorrect, are valid.
Logged
My I.Q. is 85. Or was it 58?
?

Ravenwood240

  • 2070
  • +0/-0
  • I disagree. What was the Question?
Re: acceleration
« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2009, 10:17:35 AM »
Quote from: spanner34.5 on March 06, 2009, 01:59:30 AM
Quote from: mendoza on March 05, 2009, 04:02:42 PM
Quote from: Jack on March 05, 2009, 03:57:42 PM
Quote from: mendoza on March 05, 2009, 03:34:53 PM
*facepaln* get in a car with MayTheBetterModelWin. And drive fast to wall. you will learn quickly difference before you die.
Physicists never use the term "deceleration". Since acceleration is a vector, they use terms like "acceleration +i" (e.g. 3.0m/s2 +i), "acceleration -i" (e.g. 3.0m/s2 -i), or "acceleration east" instead. For example, an object moving west and slowing down is, in layman terms, decelerating. However, in physics, it means that the object is accelerating east.

yes you are right it is right for physicists to distinguish between acceleration and deceleration (with + or - sign) as you say
Many readers of this may not be physicists, so using terms anyone may understand, even if technically incorrect, are valid.

If they don't have at least a basic understanding of the topic, why are they attempting to debate it?

I don't argue the astrophysics of FE because I don't know jack about it, nor do I expect the people that do to make their posts in terms anyone can understand.
Logged
Belief gets in the way of learning.  If you believe something, you've closed your mind to any further thought.  I know some things, little things, not the nine million names of God.

(Paraphased from R.A. Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love.")
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45173
  • +98/-138
Re: acceleration
« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2009, 11:21:06 AM »
Quote from: spanner34.5 on March 06, 2009, 01:59:30 AM
Quote from: mendoza on March 05, 2009, 04:02:42 PM
Quote from: Jack on March 05, 2009, 03:57:42 PM
Quote from: mendoza on March 05, 2009, 03:34:53 PM
*facepaln* get in a car with MayTheBetterModelWin. And drive fast to wall. you will learn quickly difference before you die.
Physicists never use the term "deceleration". Since acceleration is a vector, they use terms like "acceleration +i" (e.g. 3.0m/s2 +i), "acceleration -i" (e.g. 3.0m/s2 -i), or "acceleration east" instead. For example, an object moving west and slowing down is, in layman terms, decelerating. However, in physics, it means that the object is accelerating east.

yes you are right it is right for physicists to distinguish between acceleration and deceleration (with + or - sign) as you say
Many readers of this may not be physicists, so using terms anyone may understand, even if technically incorrect, are valid.
Like gravity and gravitation?
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
?

MayTheBetterModelWin

  • 656
  • +0/-0
Re: acceleration
« Reply #24 on: March 06, 2009, 07:28:52 PM »
Quote from: mendoza on March 05, 2009, 03:34:53 PM

First, so who was I insult? I assume there point to this message you write:

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 04, 2009, 08:53:49 AM
First, please review the rules of the Forum. You should not insult people here.
Please try harder in preparing your responses. I can't make sense of your point, potentially and partially due to the spelling and grammar issues. The admonishment does not imply that you insulted anyone.
Quote
Second, wow you found a powers point slide with the word win and philosophy in it. You good google well.

But unfortunate that it does not use it how you use it. Let me show everyone from the powers point slide.

Quote
In crisis there will be ?extraordinary science? where there will be several competing theories
One theory will win because it will get the greatest number of supporters in the scientific community

That is like a good use of the word win.

Please try harder in preparing your responses. I can't make sense of your point, potentially and partially due to the spelling and grammar issues. Yes, it does use it how I used it. No, there's no reason to impugn a scientist for using PowerPoint.
Quote
Thirds, vernacular means a native language. In this case you say:

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 04, 2009, 08:53:49 AM
you'll find 'win' in the vernacular of many theoretical debates.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 04, 2009, 07:50:30 AM
So it wins the first part of your question.
So it wins the second part of your question.

you cannot "win" part of a question this not circus. you can get a question correct. or you can answer a question correctly...

you use it like a litte boy seeing his first two of internet tits.
Please try harder in preparing your responses. I can't make sense of your point, potentially and partially due to the spelling and grammar issues. Yes, no can win a question, especially in a debate, based on the theory's response. No, I do not use in anyway incorrectly.
Quote
fourth, you say...

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 04, 2009, 09:07:04 PM
I did not say "acceleration" and "deceleration" were the same. You lose, again.

but...

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 04, 2009, 07:50:30 AM
In physics, it's meaningless to try to distinguish between accelerating up and decelerating down.

I say it very important in physics to distinguish. Get in car and find out. (bettr not lololol)

Let me try again. I did not say "acceleration and "deceleration" were the same. I said, for the exactness in physics, "accelerating up" and "decelerating down" are identical.

If you go from 0 MPH to 10 MPH UP in 1 second, You have accelerated 10MPH/sec UP and also decelerated 10MPH/sec DOWN. I recommend most any of the high school level physics texts used in the United States today.

Now do try to lose this argument graciously. I care only that you learned something.
Logged
?

mendoza

  • 55
  • +0/-0
Re: acceleration
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2009, 06:46:32 AM »
Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 06, 2009, 07:28:52 PM
Quote from: mendoza on March 05, 2009, 03:34:53 PM

First, so who was I insult? I assume there point to this message you write:

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 04, 2009, 08:53:49 AM
First, please review the rules of the Forum. You should not insult people here.
The admonishment does not imply that you insulted anyone.

OK So you tell me not to insult people, then you tell me i not insult anyone. you make no sense at all.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 06, 2009, 07:28:52 PM
Quote
Second, wow you found a powers point slide with the word win and philosophy in it. You good google well.

But unfortunate that it does not use it how you use it. Let me show everyone from the powers point slide.

Quote
In crisis there will be ?extraordinary science? where there will be several competing theories
One theory will win because it will get the greatest number of supporters in the scientific community

That is like a good use of the word win.

No, there's no reason to impugn a scientist for using PowerPoint.

I show how the powerpoint you give does not use the word "win" as you used it. I ask you to, but you not bother. i think you not scientist at all. You can write word "win" on side of goat, it not make you scientist.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 06, 2009, 07:28:52 PM
Quote
Thirds, vernacular means a native language. In this case you say:

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 04, 2009, 08:53:49 AM
you'll find 'win' in the vernacular of many theoretical debates.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 04, 2009, 07:50:30 AM
So it wins the first part of your question.
So it wins the second part of your question.

you cannot "win" part of a question this not circus. you can get a question correct. or you can answer a question correctly...

you use it like a litte boy seeing his first two of internet tits.

No, I do not use in anyway incorrectly.

Yes you did, as I show you. Write "i not wrong" does not mean you not wrong.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 06, 2009, 07:28:52 PM
Quote
fourth, you say...

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 04, 2009, 09:07:04 PM
I did not say "acceleration" and "deceleration" were the same. You lose, again.

but...

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 04, 2009, 07:50:30 AM
In physics, it's meaningless to try to distinguish between accelerating up and decelerating down.

I say it very important in physics to distinguish. Get in car and find out. (bettr not lololol)

Let me try again. I did not say "acceleration and "deceleration" were the same. I said, for the exactness in physics, "accelerating up" and "decelerating down" are identical.

If you go from 0 MPH to 10 MPH UP in 1 second, You have accelerated 10MPH/sec UP and also decelerated 10MPH/sec DOWN. I recommend most any of the high school level physics texts used in the United States today.

oh dear you read those books yet?

and i say you should get in car. maybe you think about direction of travel as well as direction of acceleration.

so i am travelling forward(+ direction) at 10m/s2 (accelerate)
then i still travel forward(+ direction) but at -10m/s2 (decellerate)

do you get it now? i suspect likely not and you will response with more attack on my english
Logged
?

MayTheBetterModelWin

  • 656
  • +0/-0
Re: acceleration
« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2009, 10:10:59 AM »
Quote from: mendoza on March 07, 2009, 06:46:32 AM
Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 06, 2009, 07:28:52 PM
Quote from: mendoza on March 05, 2009, 03:34:53 PM

First, so who was I insult? I assume there point to this message you write:

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 04, 2009, 08:53:49 AM
First, please review the rules of the Forum. You should not insult people here.
The admonishment does not imply that you insulted anyone.

OK So you tell me not to insult people, then you tell me i not insult anyone. you make no sense at all.
I made perfect sense. What don't you understand? When did I tell you that you didn't insult anyone?
Quote
Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 06, 2009, 07:28:52 PM
Quote
Second, wow you found a powers point slide with the word win and philosophy in it. You good google well.

But unfortunate that it does not use it how you use it. Let me show everyone from the powers point slide.

Quote
In crisis there will be ?extraordinary science? where there will be several competing theories
One theory will win because it will get the greatest number of supporters in the scientific community

That is like a good use of the word win.

No, there's no reason to impugn a scientist for using PowerPoint.

I show how the powerpoint you give does not use the word "win" as you used it. I ask you to, but you not bother. i think you not scientist at all. You can write word "win" on side of goat, it not make you scientist.

No, you did not show that. I never claimed to be a scientist.
Quote
Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 06, 2009, 07:28:52 PM
Quote
Thirds, vernacular means a native language. In this case you say:

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 04, 2009, 08:53:49 AM
you'll find 'win' in the vernacular of many theoretical debates.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 04, 2009, 07:50:30 AM
So it wins the first part of your question.
So it wins the second part of your question.

you cannot "win" part of a question this not circus. you can get a question correct. or you can answer a question correctly...

you use it like a litte boy seeing his first two of internet tits.

No, I do not use in anyway incorrectly.

Yes you did, as I show you. Write "i not wrong" does not mean you not wrong.

No, you did not show me that I used the word incorrectly.
Quote
Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 06, 2009, 07:28:52 PM
Quote
fourth, you say...

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 04, 2009, 09:07:04 PM
I did not say "acceleration" and "deceleration" were the same. You lose, again.

but...

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 04, 2009, 07:50:30 AM
In physics, it's meaningless to try to distinguish between accelerating up and decelerating down.

I say it very important in physics to distinguish. Get in car and find out. (bettr not lololol)

Let me try again. I did not say "acceleration and "deceleration" were the same. I said, for the exactness in physics, "accelerating up" and "decelerating down" are identical.

If you go from 0 MPH to 10 MPH UP in 1 second, You have accelerated 10MPH/sec UP and also decelerated 10MPH/sec DOWN. I recommend most any of the high school level physics texts used in the United States today.

oh dear you read those books yet?

and i say you should get in car. maybe you think about direction of travel as well as direction of acceleration.

so i am travelling forward(+ direction) at 10m/s2 (accelerate)
then i still travel forward(+ direction) but at -10m/s2 (decellerate)

do you get it now? i suspect likely not and you will response with more attack on my english
I certainly don't get it now, but I do have a better understanding of your confusion. It's a common mistake. Velocity and acceleration are vectors and therefore have direction as well as magnitude. You need to realize that in your car example you've left off direction. Acceleration FORWARD at 10 m/s2 is the same as Deceleration BACKWARDS at 10 m/s2. I've been very precise here and strongly encourage you to reconsider your stance while reading precisely what I wrote.
Logged
?

Dr Matrix

  • 4308
  • +0/-0
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: acceleration
« Reply #27 on: March 07, 2009, 12:33:01 PM »
Quote from: Matrix on March 05, 2009, 02:53:52 PM
There is no such thing as deceleration - that's why you're having trouble.  Acceleration describes the rate of change of velocity with time as the result of a force being applied to an object.  This is determined by the equation F = ma, where F is the force, m is the mass of the object and a is acceleration.  There is no formula for 'deceleration', since all that means is that the force is acting in the opposite direction to the way the object is moving.

In the case of FE, where there is no reliable external reference point, you can't tell which way you were moving in the first place (all you can tell is what your force-meter tells you).
Logged
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »