On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:34:51 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Let's just take a look at an example of YOUR alleged "thinking". You
>said:
>
>> "Hold out a stone and then release it. Acceleration of the stone toward
Earth is
>> immediate. No "resistance", no hesitation, no "inertia". .
>
> If you release a stone, the acceleration of the stone toward the Earth
>is *NOT* immediate. Items fall at the rate of 32' per second, per
>second. THAT's hardly instantaneous or immediate, and the time taken to
>overcome the object's inertia happens to be 32' per second within the
>Earth's gravitational field. If the object had NO inertia it would drop
>immediately (barring air resistance), probably near light speed, but
>such is NOT the case. So even your little logical exercise here is
>seriously flawed and actually SUP****TS the concept of inertia. In fact,
>your exercise is a demonstrative example of that "Confirmation Bias"
>that started this thread, where you are trying interpret things NOT from
>an objective point of view, but from preconceived notions that in this
>case just happen to be in error. LOL
>
>> No pecks of "inertia" <g>.
>
> I think I've sufficiently demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, with
>excerpts from 7 various physics sites the other day, that the science
>community believes that mass is the measure of inertia. So until you
>can sup****t your conjecture that "there are no pecks of inertia" I will
>have to conclude that your comments are little more than a unsup****ted
>guesses. And no matter how many times you repeat it, it's not going to
>suddenly become true. This is not one of your political arguments
>where simple rhetoric reigns supreme. In science, FACTS and EVIDENCE
>are the primary determining factors, and so far, you have not presented
>any facts OR evidence, just opinions, guesses, and conjecture.
>
> Let's do a little thought experiment to try and clarify this issue.
>Say we have a stationary bowling ball that m***** 5 kilos, it therefore
>has 5 kilos worth of inertia holding it in place. (Remember now, mass
>is the MEASURE of inertia)
>
> Now we have a second bowling ball that m***** the same 5 kilos, but it
>is rolling across a carpet losing velocity as it rolls to the friction
>of the carpet and gravity. All momentum measurements can be done at the
>momentum area of the HyperPhysics site automatically, just plug in the
>data. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
>
> It first rolls at 2 meters per second which equals a momentum of 10 kg
>m/s. (p=m*v) To be complete and include your precious vectors, let's
>just say the ball is rolling due East.
> Then it's velocity slows down to 1 meter per sec. equaling a momentum
>of 5 kg m/s.
> It slows down further to .5 meter per sec. equaling a momentum of 2.5
>kg m/s.
> And further slows down to .1 meter per sec. equaling a momentum of .5
>kg m/s.
> Until it finally stops at a velocity of 0 meters per sec. equaling a
>momentum of O kg m/s.
> Do you see the pattern here? As the moving bowling ball slows down
>it's momentum becomes less and less until it reaches ZERO where there is
>no more momentum within the reference frame considered (yes, yes, the
>scalar measurement of momentum - but that's really all we're concerned
>with here since a zero vector adds no measurable momentum to the
>object). So the momentum of a object drops as the velocity drops, the
>object has less and less momentum until it stops moving completely and
>the momentum drops to ZERO. And at ZERO momentum there is no momentum
>left over to "Hold it in place" as your conceptual boo-boo claimed.
>BUT, its not free to float off to who knows where, since it STILL has 5
>kg worth of INERTIA holding it in place.
>
> See how simple all that is when you focus just on the pertinent issues,
>and don't try to obfuscate matters with external/irrelevant comments.
Anyone else want to try to help him out?
--
Cliff
|
