Re: space-time + matter/energy OR space-time-matter


MobyDikc wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:


[snip]

I love how you snipped all that commentary without responding. I guess
the truth hurts.

For example:

at 0 seconds a 50kg ball is 100m above the earth - at 1 second the ball
is 50m above the earth

From this alone we can calculate velocity, acceleration, force, work,
power, potential energy, and kinetic energy.

Really?

From those 5 numbers you can calculate all that?

Prove it.

We can say that the velocity of ball from 0 seconds to 1 second was, on
average, 50m/s

Yes - average velocity.


We can say that the acceleration of the ball due to gravity at 0
seconds was 9.8m/s/s

No you can't.


Sure. I mentioned the 50kg ball and the earth. The "earth" is a well
known body in physics and has a well known mass.

This knowledge is not included in the assumptions given in "From this
alone".


Using Newton's universal theory of gravitation (just as I used the
formula v = d/t to arrive at the acceptable answer in the first step)
we can calculate that the force is in fact, approximately 9.8m/s^2

Instantaneous velocity is dx/dt, average velocity is d/t.

Average velocity is not the same as instantaneous velocity when the
particle is accelerating.

When are you going to take calculus?



"From this alone we can calculate velocity, acceleration, force, work,
power, potential energy, and kinetic energy."

You are using additional assumptions external to the 5 numbers you
listed.

In the first step I used the formula v / d/t

That was OK.

In the second step I used the formula Fg = G(m1*m2)/d^2, and looked up
the well known value for the mass of the earth (5.9742 × 10^24 kg)

This knowledge is not included in the assumptions given in "From this
alone".


Now I'm cheating.

Grow up.

You wanted to do physics, now you're acting as if the "earth" is some
unknown in physics.

Don't be a retard.

All I'm doing is holding you to what you said:

"From this alone we can calculate velocity, acceleration, force, work,
power, potential energy, and kinetic energy."

It is obvious you can't do that to anyone who has taken some actual
physics courses.




Yes, they are. But they can not be calculated from the information you
listed without assuming more knowledge.


Niether can the velocity then.

To calculate the velocity we would technically need to know that the
formula for velocity is v = d/t

Average velocity, retard.


But you didn't nit pick that.

Yes I did, but you snipped it.

"Instantaneous velocity at that point is different from average
velocity because the particle is accelerating."




[snip]

As I said before:

You don't even have a firm grasp of highschool physics and you expect
people to take your philosophical sophistry seriously?

I love it when the uneducated make theories.

Are you a physicist?

I think like one and I am getting the education of one.

But are you a physicist?

More so than you and most people in this newsgroup.



Most physicists when they hear the word "earth" know what body I'm
refering to, along with some of its well known properties.

Don't cry because I shoved your idiocy in your face.

"From this alone we can calculate velocity, acceleration, force, work,
power, potential energy, and kinetic energy."

You are incapable of talking in a precise manner regarding physics
because you don't know *** about physics.


But maybe you're not that far along in your education.

You have no concept of what my education is, idiot. Unlike you, I have
invested time and money into learning physics that is far beyond
worthless high school physics.

Your only exposure to physics was in high school. You do not know any
calculus, so the entire repository of knowledge that is classical and
modern physics is reduced to catch phrases like "mass-energy" and
approximations.

The door to physics is utterly closed to you because you are so
ignorant and unwilling to do something about it. There is no way in
hell you are ever going to learn physics by doing philosophy.

.

Loading