Problem for Spaceman
Robert Kolker
its constantly decelarted by gravity with deceleration g. Its vertical
height as a function of time is therefore:
s(t) = -1/2*g*t^2 + v*t.
At what time does the object reach its maximum height and how high is it
when it stops going up and begins to come down.
Solve.
Second question: what technique did you use to solve this problem,
(assuming you could solve it).
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3EA069FC...@attbi.com...
Why?
You have no cause being found for such an effect,
no matter what the calculation finds out
about the time it reaches such height.
When are you going to try and find out "what" makes
it fall back again at all?
You are not doing the "physical science" part at all,
you are still doing the math prediction worshipping only.
Do you even read the groups name?
Spaceman
That is what physical science is supposed to be finding out.
I see you don't know what "physical" science is all about at all still.
I see you still merely want to worship "silly math without physical cause"
causes.
<LOL>
Bob,
Are you basically supporting an argument that gravity is caused by
the math you worship?
<LOL>
Jim
>
>"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3EA069FC...@attbi.com...
>> An object is tossed up into space with an initial upward velocity V and
>> its constantly decelarted by gravity with deceleration g. Its vertical
>> height as a function of time is therefore:
>>
>> s(t) = -1/2*g*t^2 + v*t.
>>
>> At what time does the object reach its maximum height and how high is it
>> when it stops going up and begins to come down.
>>
>> Solve.
>>
>> Second question: what technique did you use to solve this problem,
>> (assuming you could solve it).
>
>Why?
Why not?
Jim
Robert Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
> "Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3EA069FC...@attbi.com...
>
>>An object is tossed up into space with an initial upward velocity V and
>>its constantly decelarted by gravity with deceleration g. Its vertical
>>height as a function of time is therefore:
>>
>>s(t) = -1/2*g*t^2 + v*t.
>>
>>At what time does the object reach its maximum height and how high is it
>>when it stops going up and begins to come down.
>>
>>Solve.
>>
>>Second question: what technique did you use to solve this problem,
>>(assuming you could solve it).
>
>
> Why?
I knew it! You cant do the problem. You stupid schmuck! This is first
year physics.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:i9s0av020m06pphkn...@4ax.com...
Because I never said math is part of physical cause finding.
and I never said I am a math worshipper like bob is.
.
Pmb
I don't recall him every saying that he could solve a physics problem. So
why are you asking him to?
Pmb
Spaceman
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3EA072ED...@attbi.com...
No,
I should not need to do the problem Bob,
and if that is first year physics, it is in the wrong freakin' classroom.
It has no cause being found at all.
Do you actually think "physics" is "math is the cause" science?
Robert Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
> Why?
> You have no cause being found for such an effect,
> no matter what the calculation finds out
> about the time it reaches such height.
An artillary officer does not have time to find out the ultimate causes
of gravity or -why- falling bodies accelerate the way the do. But he
knows that to a good approximation the vertical position of an object
accelarated upward with an initial velocity V will be (to a good
approximation) -1/2*g*t^2 + V*t. He will be able to angle his gun to any
range within the maximum range of his artillary piece. He does not care
why, he cares -what- because he has a war to fight or a mission to
accomplish.
Now can you or can't you (say which) solve the problem or not. If if
you can, tell me what technique you used to solve it.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
> Bob,
> Are you basically supporting an argument that gravity is caused by
> the math you worship?
I am telling you that the effects of gravity (from whatever cause) can
be accurately predicted and described mathematically. One does not need
to know -why-. One needs to know -how-.
That is why we can build planes and spaceships without having a clue why
gravity is.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
"Pmb" <peter....@verizon.net> wrote in message news:Kr_na.2594$xR4....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
That is not a physics problem, It is a mathematical prediction problem
of an effect only.
It has no cause being found at all and gives no reason or ways
to solve for a cause at all.
The only problem is, it was not "physical science" at all.
It was math prediction worshipping crap only.
Robert Kolker
Jim wrote:
>
> Why not?
He is full of shit (what a surprise!). He does not have the first notion
of how to solve the problem. Never mind that 13 year old kids can do
this with no trouble at all.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3EA073BC...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Spaceman wrote:
> > Why?
> > You have no cause being found for such an effect,
> > no matter what the calculation finds out
> > about the time it reaches such height.
>
> An artillary officer does not have time to find out the ultimate causes
> of gravity or -why- falling bodies accelerate the way the do.
And that is why he is not as physicist.
DUH!
Still no cause and you are not even looking for one huh?
I should call you reverse Baghdad Bob!
You say the cause is there and it is not!
<LOL>
Pmb
>
>
> Spaceman wrote:
> > Why?
> > You have no cause being found for such an effect,
> > no matter what the calculation finds out
> > about the time it reaches such height.
A rather silly excuse not to make an attempt to solve the problem. Science
doesn't always explain the cause for effects. But such a lack never hinders
the scientist from solving a problem or making a prediction etc. In fact
Kepler was rather brilliant at describing the motions of planets - yet he
never knew the cause for his explanation
> An artillary officer does not have time to find out the ultimate causes
> of gravity or -why- falling bodies accelerate the way the do. But he
> knows that to a good approximation the vertical position of an object
> accelarated upward with an initial velocity V will be (to a good
> approximation) -1/2*g*t^2 + V*t. He will be able to angle his gun to any
> range within the maximum range of his artillary piece. He does not care
> why, he cares -what- because he has a war to fight or a mission to
> accomplish.
Interestingly enough, and if I recall correctly, for the higher powered
artillery on WW-II battleships they have to take into account the Coriolis
force in order to hit their target.
Pmb
Pmb
>
>
> Spaceman wrote:
> > Bob,
> > Are you basically supporting an argument that gravity is caused by
> > the math you worship?
Oh my God! What a horrible excuse!
spaceman - If I am in a car traveling 100 mph how far will I have traveled
in 1 hour?
Was it the math that got me there?
Pmb
Spaceman
> > Bob,
> > Are you basically supporting an argument that gravity is caused by
> > the math you worship?
>
> I am telling you that the effects of gravity (from whatever cause)
Who gives a shit about the effects,
I never said the stupid ass math worshipping you do does not find the effect,
I stated it has no cause associated so it is still worth crap so far.
What makes it fall Bob?
What is the cause Baghdad Bob?
Spaceman
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3EA074BB...@attbi.com...
Say that all you want bob,
It only proves you lack cause still and wish to ignore such
a fact by twisting like Baghdad Bob stated the US was not in Iraq!
<LOL>
Robert Kolker
Pmb wrote:
>> I don't recall him every saying that he could solve a physics problem. So
> why are you asking him to?
This is eighth or ninth grade stuff. I didn't ask him if he could read
either. I just assumed he could.
But you are right. Maybe they did not teach elementary physics at the
Massachussetts School for the Extremely Retarded.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
"Pmb" <peter....@verizon.net> wrote in message news:%y_na.2595$xR4....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> A rather silly excuse not to make an attempt to solve the problem. Science
> doesn't always explain the cause for effects.
Do you even know what the "physical sciences" are for?
you just proved you don't in that statement!
<LOL>
Spaceman
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3EA075FC...@attbi.com...
> This is eighth or ninth grade stuff. I didn't ask him if he could read
> either. I just assumed he could.
It is math stuff,
not physical science stuff.
Tis sad you have lost the difference in your complex filled brain.
Only proves you will never find a cause and should
not even be taking about physical science at all.
> But you are right. Maybe they did not teach elementary physics at the
> Massachussetts School for the Extremely Retarded.
I was taught science at Andover High School.
I was also taught the difference between "math predictions of effect"
and physical causes of effects.
When a ball is kicked.
The person is the cause of the balls motion.
not the math of the path it can take.
Sheesh you re freakin dense and will always lack cause
for the rest of your pathetic math worshipping life.
Your math is your gospel huh Baghdad Bob?
Pmb
Well it has always seemed quite obvious to me that his math skills are
extremely poor. After that argument he gave with the negative times a
negative is a negative it was quite obvious. Not that he got it wrong mind
you. But the fact that he couldn't follow as basic a derivation as I gave it
was quite adequate proof for me. After that (and the insults that followed)
he went off to the killfile.
I've actually never even seen him make a reasonable statement - although I
eventually gave up trying to find one - especially with the way he loves to
insult the person asking the question or who he can't force his views on. Oh
well. Life's too short.
Pmb
Spaceman
"Pmb" <peter....@verizon.net> wrote in message news:rA_na.2596$xR4...@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
Bob thinks so.
I know it was you pressing the gas pedal as one of the "physical" causes.
I also know there is no math needed to explain physical causes.
You seem to think math is needed to explain physical cause?
Spaceman
"Pmb" <peter....@verizon.net> wrote in message news:kH_na.2597$xR4....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> I've actually never even seen him make a reasonable statement -
twisted math worshipping lemming minds usually can not grasp simple
basic logic anymore.
Pmb,
you seem to be a very good lemming.
congrats on soon falling off the cliff.
Robert Kolker
Pmb wrote:
> "Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3EA073BC...@attbi.com...
>
>>
>>Spaceman wrote:
>>
>>>Why?
>>>You have no cause being found for such an effect,
>>>no matter what the calculation finds out
>>>about the time it reaches such height.
>>
>
> A rather silly excuse not to make an attempt to solve the problem. Science
> doesn't always explain the cause for effects. But such a lack never hinders
> the scientist from solving a problem or making a prediction etc. In fact
> Kepler was rather brilliant at describing the motions of planets - yet he
> never knew the cause for his explanation
Kepler did not have a precise notion of force (as did Newton). Kepler
was glomming on to some idea about eminations from the Sun, but this was
a far thing from understanding how forces change motion. Give Kepler 5
out of 10 for trying. Give him 9.5 out of 10 for mathematical exactitude
of fit to Tycho Brahe's data.
Give Tycho 10 and 10 for realizing that good instruments, freqeunt and
careful observation were absolutely essential to astronomy.
>
>
>
>>An artillary officer does not have time to find out the ultimate causes
>>of gravity or -why- falling bodies accelerate the way the do. But he
>>knows that to a good approximation the vertical position of an object
>>accelarated upward with an initial velocity V will be (to a good
>>approximation) -1/2*g*t^2 + V*t. He will be able to angle his gun to any
>>range within the maximum range of his artillary piece. He does not care
>>why, he cares -what- because he has a war to fight or a mission to
>>accomplish.
>
>
> Interestingly enough, and if I recall correctly, for the higher powered
> artillery on WW-II battleships they have to take into account the Coriolis
> force in order to hit their target.
A-1 Correct. Outstanding! That is corretct. The naval shells could be
fired for a range of 20 to 30 miles so it was essential to factor in the
Coriolis effect. Those 16 inch naval rifles shot off with a half ton of
high explosives were a tube full of whup-ass. Awesome. HOO-rah!
If the renaissance canoneers could build guns that could fire a shell 10
miles (say) they would have discovered the Coriolis effect empirically.
Ironically, this is the proof that was required for the rotation of the
earth about its axis. If they had this kind of gun, Galileo never would
have been put on trial.
Bob Kolker
Eric Prebys
Translation: he can't even solve *that* problem.
-Eric
Spaceman
"Eric Prebys" <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message news:3EA078D7...@fnal.gov...
Further translation,
Eric thinks math is a cause and physics is all done.
Robert Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
Bob thinks so.
No Bob does NOT think so.
> I know it was you pressing the gas pedal as one of the "physical" causes.
> I also know there is no math needed to explain physical causes.
> You seem to think math is needed to explain physical cause?
For the record. Mathematics does not cause anything physical. It
-describes- and -predicts- physical things where there is a theory to
wrap the math up with.
Byt the way pushing on the pedal does not cause the car to move. Try
doing it before you start the engine and see how far you will get.
Pushing on the pedal increases the fuel flow to the engine, making it go
faster. If the car is in gear the engine will turn the wheels and make
the car go (assuming there is sufficient traction).
You can't even get the cause of automotive motion right.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3EA07A16...@attbi.com...
> No Bob does NOT think so.
Then tell us the cause for such predictions?
I have never stated the prediction do not work Bob,
I have also never stated I know all of them.
I have simply stated what you know is not "physical science"
If anything it is only half of the physical science.
and you lack what the physical sciences were created for,
To find a cause for such effects.
Sheesh
What a freakin arrogant asshole,
As arrogant as Baghdad Bob himself.
Is that you?
Pmb
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote
> A-1 Correct. Outstanding! That is corretct. The naval shells could be
> fired for a range of 20 to 30 miles so it was essential to factor in the
> Coriolis effect. Those 16 inch naval rifles shot off with a half ton of
> high explosives were a tube full of whup-ass. Awesome. HOO-rah!
Do me a favor? Please don't ask me to solve *this* problem? :-D
Pmb
Jim
>
>"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3EA069FC...@attbi.com...
>> An object is tossed up into space with an initial upward velocity V and
>> its constantly decelarted by gravity with deceleration g. Its vertical
>> height as a function of time is therefore:
>>
>> s(t) = -1/2*g*t^2 + v*t.
>>
>> At what time does the object reach its maximum height and how high is it
>> when it stops going up and begins to come down.
>>
>> Solve.
>>
>> Second question: what technique did you use to solve this problem,
>> (assuming you could solve it).
>
>Why?
>You have no cause being found for such an effect,
>no matter what the calculation finds out
>about the time it reaches such height.
>When are you going to try and find out "what" makes
>it fall back again at all?
>You are not doing the "physical science" part at all,
>you are still doing the math prediction worshipping only.
>
>Do you even read the groups name?
>
>
I'd like to see the answer to the N/S question WITHOUT any
math involved. :)
Jim
Mike Varney
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
news:I5_na.275459$Zo.54269@sccrnsc03...
>
> "Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3EA069FC...@attbi.com...
> > An object is tossed up into space with an initial upward velocity V and
> > its constantly decelarted by gravity with deceleration g. Its vertical
> > height as a function of time is therefore:
> >
> > s(t) = -1/2*g*t^2 + v*t.
> >
> > At what time does the object reach its maximum height and how high is it
> > when it stops going up and begins to come down.
> >
> > Solve.
> >
> > Second question: what technique did you use to solve this problem,
> > (assuming you could solve it).
>
> Why?
Spaceman can't do it! Hahahahahahahahahaha! The only thing spaceman can do
is his son.
Spaceman
"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:5qv0avsr593sr6kke...@4ax.com...
:)
Yes,
that was the point,
but of course you missed that as usual
because you did not want to get it at all.
The point was to show a part of thier logic of the math
they use is with "striaght line jokes" is flawed.
(that part being the curved line as straight bullshit.)
It was asking for actual math alone.
Spaceman
"Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3d%na.2800$oo6....@news.uswest.net...
> Spaceman can't do it! Hahahahahahahahahaha! The only thing spaceman can do
> is his son.
You should seek help Varney.
You are obsessed with lying like a rug.
Mike Varney
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
And you are obsessed with dorking your son.
Phil Holman
Differential rotation that's all. Math is simply a tool to make
predictions. More accuracy requires more sophistication in the math.
Spaceman interprets this to mean that everyone blindly follows the math.
Not true and why should such a stance put a clamp on one's intellectual
reasoning? Sounds like a combination of paranoia and sour grapes.
I'm in the middle of teaching an Introduction to Engineering class at
the local high school. The module I'm teaching is how to calculate the
launch angle, elevation and velocity of a golf ball for a given range.
The 4 teams in the class then design and build a trebuchet to convert
their predictions into a physical reality. The goal is to make a golf
ball land in a 3 ft circle 50 ft away. We use a step program in excel to
take into account aerodynamic drag. Lots of fun and a very worthwhile
exercise.
Phil Holman
Spaceman
"Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:nC%na.2801$oo6....@news.uswest.net...
> And you are obsessed with dorking your son.
Only in your very sick mind Mike.
It is also very sad you have such thoughts at all.
You really should seek help for such sick thoughts.
J. Todd Wasson
>is his son.
>
Hehehehe... Good one :-)
Todd Wasson
Racing Software
http://PerformanceSimulations.com
My car sim
http://performancesimulations.com/scnshot4.htm
J. Todd Wasson
>I know it was you pressing the gas pedal as one of the "physical" causes.
>I also know there is no math needed to explain physical causes.
>You seem to think math is needed to explain physical cause?
>
>
>
Of course you do. How else can you define a problem? Cause of what? It moved
so far in so much time when we did this, but it moved this much farther when we
did that instead. Why? To find the cause, we have to know the relationship
first. Hence, math usually pops in.
Hey guys, the atomic clock worshipping session is at my house the weekend.
I'll be the Great Cesium Poo Bah this "time". Who's coming?
Robert Kolker
Mike Varney wrote:
> Spaceman can't do it! Hahahahahahahahahaha! The only thing spaceman can do
> is his son.
>
Now I know why he is hung up on straight lines. The geodesic of the
small colon (including the rectum) is a straight line.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert Kolker
Phil Holman wrote:
> ball land in a 3 ft circle 50 ft away. We use a step program in excel to
> take into account aerodynamic drag. Lots of fun and a very worthwhile
> exercise.
>
The Tiger is the only professional golfer who has to factor in the
Coriolis Effect.
Bob Kolker
Mike Varney
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
>
> "Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nC%na.2801$oo6....@news.uswest.net...
> > And you are obsessed with dorking your son.
>
> Only in
Jim
You aren't going to give me the answer, are you. :)
Jim
Spaceman
"Phil Holman" <phi...@earthlink.not> wrote in message
news:gC%na.29556$ey1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Differential rotation that's all. Math is simply a tool to make
> predictions. More accuracy requires more sophistication in the math.
> Spaceman interprets this to mean that everyone blindly follows the math.
No sir,
I only states such about those that do such like Bob and his
religious groupings
They refuse to look for causes at all.
They actually think the math can give the cause
and think physics does not need more than a prediction of effect only.
> Not true and why should such a stance put a clamp on one's intellectual
> reasoning? Sounds like a combination of paranoia and sour grapes.
> I'm in the middle of teaching an Introduction to Engineering class at
> the local high school. The module I'm teaching is how to calculate the
> launch angle, elevation and velocity of a golf ball for a given range.
> The 4 teams in the class then design and build a trebuchet to convert
> their predictions into a physical reality. The goal is to make a golf
> ball land in a 3 ft circle 50 ft away. We use a step program in excel to
> take into account aerodynamic drag. Lots of fun and a very worthwhile
> exercise.
It is a great module of learning,
as long as you don't tell them that is what physics is about.
because it is not physics, it is ballistics.
One smallpart of the predictions of physics only
that lacks causes completely
Physics would be trying to find out why the ball took off
and why the ball fell again. (in words)
Predictions alone have created false gods in physics.
Not one of these (great theorists) have found a cause yet
and that has held back "physics" completely and turned
it into a math book as gospel religion.
A cause will not be found with a prediction of the effect only.
It will be found by finding the forces that cause the effects,
and such forces have names too, not just numbers.
In your example,
The trebuchet's force (whatever design used)
will launch the ball and gravity will bring
it back down and of course air resistance can slow it down too.
Those are physical causes. (yet not complete of course)
that is just the basics of the causes,
and there is no math at all needed to explain such basic causes.
But to find out more about the causes,
you need to find out the cause of each "effect"
The chain goes on a long way,
math and predictions is the ending links only.
Many here are not playing with the full chain of cause and effect,
and think effect is all you need,
and that is not the "physical sciences"
each of such falls into other sciences.
physical causes create physical effects.
That is physics.
only half of such is not "physics in complete form"
It is simply mathematics and lacks causes completely.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Spaceman
"J. Todd Wasson" <jtw6...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20030418191817...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >Spaceman can't do it! Hahahahahahahahahaha! The only thing spaceman can do
> >is his son.
> >
>
> Hehehehe... Good one :-)
No it wasn't Todd,
You should also seek help if you think it was.
It only shows you have a sick mind if you think that is funny in anyway at all.
Pmb
"Phil Holman" <phi...@earthlink.not> wrote
> Differential rotation that's all. Math is simply a tool to make
> predictions.
Yes. I'm well aware of the physics and mathematics of the problem. But it's
not as simple as writing a polynomial. I'm not saying that its hard. I'm
just saying I'd rather not do it - Too lazy.
However if anyone wants to do it I'd love to see it worked out the the level
of accuracy actually used in practice.
Pmb
Spaceman
"J. Todd Wasson" <jtw6...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20030418192137...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> Of course you do. How else can you define a problem? Cause of what? It moved
> so far in so much time when we did this, but it moved this much farther when we
> did that instead. Why? To find the cause, we have to know the relationship
> first. Hence, math usually pops in.
>
> Hey guys, the atomic clock worshipping session is at my house the weekend.
> I'll be the Great Cesium Poo Bah this "time". Who's coming?
So the great "can't figure out a liquid piston engine" fool is back.
Still mad you could not figure out that engine huh Wasson?
Spaceman
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3EA0890B...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Mike Varney wrote:
> > Spaceman can't do it! Hahahahahahahahahaha! The only thing spaceman can do
> > is his son.
> >
>
> Now I know why he is hung up on straight lines.
No,
you are hung up on "curved straight lines".
<LOL>
You are so warped you think you are straight!
<LOL>
Mike Varney
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
I bet Nick does not think it is funny when you dork him.
Spaceman
"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:1g21avcgh9nl5a35h...@4ax.com...
The answer to the N/S distance without actual calculations
at all needed, was actually given by Hanson,
Never heard of a caliper huh?
No math needed,
It finds the shortest distance from one side (point) to another (point) without following the
surface or using math at all.
:)
Spaceman
"Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:0_%na.2805$oo6....@news.uswest.net...
I bet you won't think it is funny when you snap completely
and are placed in a mental institution for having scuh thoughts
constantly.
BTW:
How do you know my sons name?
Stalking too now?
Jim
THAT was a looooooooooong row to hoe. :)
Jim
Pyriform
> Give Kepler 5
> out of 10 for trying. Give him 9.5 out of 10 for mathematical
> exactitude of fit to Tycho Brahe's data.
>
> Give Tycho 10 and 10 for realizing that good instruments, freqeunt and
> careful observation were absolutely essential to astronomy.
Tycho should get bonus points for the nose, but lose points for hiding
(while alive) a lot of his results from Kepler, who he thought too
clever by half...
--
Pyriform
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:I5_na.275459$Zo.54269@sccrnsc03...
>
> "Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3EA069FC...@attbi.com...
> > An object is tossed up into space with an initial upward velocity V and
> > its constantly decelarted by gravity with deceleration g. Its vertical
> > height as a function of time is therefore:
> >
> > s(t) = -1/2*g*t^2 + v*t.
> >
> > At what time does the object reach its maximum height and how high is it
> > when it stops going up and begins to come down.
> >
> > Solve.
> >
> > Second question: what technique did you use to solve this problem,
> > (assuming you could solve it).
>
> Why?
> You have no cause being found for such an effect,
> no matter what the calculation finds out
> about the time it reaches such height.
> When are you going to try and find out "what" makes
> it fall back again at all?
> You are not doing the "physical science" part at all,
> you are still doing the math prediction worshipping only.
>
> Do you even read the groups name?
which is the title of:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GroupName.html
Well done Spacehog.
Dirk Vdm
John Schoenfeld
> An object is tossed up into space with an initial upward velocity V and
> its constantly decelarted by gravity with deceleration g. Its vertical
> height as a function of time is therefore:
>
> s(t) = -1/2*g*t^2 + v*t.
>
> At what time does the object reach its maximum height and how high is it
> when it stops going up and begins to come down.
>
> Solve.
>
> Second question: what technique did you use to solve this problem,
> (assuming you could solve it).
>
Spaceman's answer is adequate for the question.
Roberts usage of the term "deceleration" is confusing. He implies that
if the rate of change of velocity is negative, then this is
deceleration.
Roberts question:
"An object is tossed up into space with an initial upward velocity V
and
its constantly decelarted by gravity with deceleration g. Its vertical
height as a function of time is therefore"
So if the object is constantly decelerating, then when it reaches
velocity 0, it will "decelerate" upwards and thus would never come
down.
Deceleration != -Acceleration
Furthermore, the displacement function
s(t) = -1/2*g*t^2 + v*t.
assumes uniform gravitational field strength g which is not true for
any Newtonian gravitational field. To fake such a uniform
gravitational field by factoring in other strategically placed
graviational sources would ofcourse assume the superposition principle
effectively factoring out any possible field-to-field interactions
(which in my view do occur classically, for more than NG fields mind
you).
The correct equation for your s(t)is
s(t) = s(0) + sum(i=1, inf) s^i(0)t^i / i!
Also happens to be the Taylor serious about 0 for s(t) (although i've
shown an alternate derivation). This can be approximated by
considering as many derivatives of s(t) as one choses - assuming you
know all s^i(0) ie. inital displacement, velocity, accel, jerk, etc.
The answer is not quite the t = 2v/g Robert was hoping for, and
Spacemans response (or lackthereof) is appropriate given the context
of the question.
JS
Mike Varney
"John Schoenfeld" <j.scho...@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.03041...@posting.google.com...
> Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<3EA069FC...@attbi.com>...
> > An object is tossed up into space with an initial upward velocity V and
> > its constantly decelarted by gravity with deceleration g. Its vertical
> > height as a function of time is therefore:
> >
> > s(t) = -1/2*g*t^2 + v*t.
> >
> > At what time does the object reach its maximum height and how high is it
> > when it stops going up and begins to come down.
> >
> > Solve.
> >
> > Second question: what technique did you use to solve this problem,
> > (assuming you could solve it).
> >
> > Bob Kolker
>
> Spaceman's answer is adequate for the question.
Idiot.
MasterCougar
Schoenfeld) posted news:a98beaaa.03041...@posting.google.com:
> So if the object is constantly decelerating, then when it reaches
> velocity 0, it will "decelerate" upwards and thus would never come
> down.
>
>
*Blink* Too stupid. Are you Driscol in disguise?
--
Marc,
This is where I would normally put a funny sig, but now I just don't have
it in me.
MasterCougar
Schoenfeld) posted news:a98beaaa.03041...@posting.google.com:
> Roberts usage of the term "deceleration" is confusing. He implies that
> if the rate of change of velocity is negative, then this is
> deceleration.
>
>
Er, no. That IS the definition of the word "deceleration"
Robert Kolker
John Schoenfeld wrote:
> Deceleration != -Acceleration
A nitpik. Decleration is accelaration in the other direction. Anyway you
look at it is a change in velocity over time.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Mike Varney wrote:
>
>
> Idiot.
Yup. The approximate formula I gave is good enough for putting a cannon
ball in the castle keep at 500 yards.
Bob Kolker
Mark Folsom
> > >
> > >
> > > Spaceman wrote:
> > > > Bob,
> > > > Are you basically supporting an argument that gravity is caused by
> > > > the math you worship?
> >
> > Oh my God! What a horrible excuse!
> >
> > spaceman - If I am in a car traveling 100 mph how far will I have
traveled
> > in 1 hour?
> >
> > Was it the math that got me there?
>
> Bob thinks so.
> I know it was you pressing the gas pedal as one of the "physical" causes.
> I also know there is no math needed to explain physical causes.
> You seem to think math is needed to explain physical cause?
If two scientists propose different physical causes for the same phenomenon,
how would you choose between them?
Mark Folsom
Mark Folsom
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> > No Bob does NOT think so.
>
> Then tell us the cause for such predictions?
Can you?
> I have never stated the prediction do not work Bob,
> I have also never stated I know all of them.
Do you know any of them?
> I have simply stated what you know is not "physical science"
What's wrong with physical science working on the problems it can solve, and
leaving the really hard stuff for you?
> If anything it is only half of the physical science.
Show us the other half.
> and you lack what the physical sciences were created for,
> To find a cause for such effects.
Who says that's what they were created for? Do you have references? When
were they created, and by whom?
> Sheesh
> What a freakin arrogant asshole,
> As arrogant as Baghdad Bob himself.
> Is that you?
>
>
Pmb
>
>
> John Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Deceleration != -Acceleration
>
> A nitpik. Decleration is accelaration in the other direction.
I don't see that
Deceleration = -acceleration
as being wrong in any sense of the word. The meaning is quite clear but
shouldn't be take literally. Whenever someone has used the term
"Deceleration" I've always understood what was meant. The context is what
makes it clear.
So what's the problem with it?
>Anyway you look at it is a change in velocity over time.
Careful here. A particle moving a constant speed in a circle has an velocity
which is constantly changing. However I wouldn't call that "Deceleration".
Is that what John was referring to?
Pmb
Spaceman
"Mark Folsom" <fols...@prodigy.com> wrote in message news:va2tta3...@corp.supernews.com...
> If two scientists propose different physical causes for the same phenomenon,
> how would you choose between them?
It would be nice to try and do such with physical experiments,
but so far, no causes are proposed at all, only predictions and
circular causes that are worthless all based upon the ignorance of what
time was invented for to begin with and the ignorance of using optical illusions
as realities.
Spaceman
"Mark Folsom" <fols...@prodigy.com> wrote in message news:va2ttaq...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> news:5X_na.276172$Zo.54295@sccrnsc03...
> >
> > "Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3EA07A16...@attbi.com...
> > > No Bob does NOT think so.
> >
> > Then tell us the cause for such predictions?
>
> Can you?
Yes.
a higher force is present above the object that ends up pushing it back.
and that higher force is the free spin forces of electrons in a less dense space.
> > I have never stated the prediction do not work Bob,
> > I have also never stated I know all of them.
>
> Do you know any of them?
Does not matter for finding a cause itself,
> > I have simply stated what you know is not "physical science"
>
> What's wrong with physical science working on the problems it can solve, and
> leaving the really hard stuff for you?
What problems it can solve about cause finding?
It still has no physical causes found at all (except a few circular joke causes)
and worships predictions only, instead of looking for a cause anymore
at all because they are too arrogant and ignorant to attempt such.
Spaceman
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3EA176BB...@attbi.com...
>
>
> John Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Deceleration != -Acceleration
>
> A nitpik. Decleration is accelaration in the other direction.
No it is not.
It is a slowing down of the accelration and not an acceleration
in the other direction at all, until it passes the 0 (stationary) point.
You really think hitting the brakes in a car causes acceleration backwards?
<LOL>
Robert Kolker
Pmb wrote:
> "Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> Careful here. A particle moving a constant speed in a circle has an velocity
> which is constantly changing. However I wouldn't call that "Deceleration".
> Is that what John was referring to?
Look at the acceleration vector, pointing to the center of the circle.
The deceleration vector is pi radians opposite. It is all in how one
reckons the directions.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
> It would be nice to try and do such with physical experiments,
> but so far, no causes are proposed at all, only predictions and
> circular causes that are worthless all based upon the ignorance of what
> time was invented for to begin with and the ignorance of using optical illusions
> as realities.
If the predictions are right, all is forgiven. The science of
semi-conductors is based on physics with no underlying causal mechanism.
Bob Kolker
Pmb
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3EA182F4...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Pmb wrote:
>
> reckons the directions.
Yes. I understand that. But first off I didn't say it was wrong since you
can define anything you wish and therefore you can attach any meaning you
wish to "deceleration". But what was being referred to as
"Deceleration = -Acceleration"
This does not define "deceleration vector". If you want then you can define
"Deceleration vector = -Acceleration vector"
But you haven't defined Deceleration yet. There's a big difference. However
I said I, personally, wouldn't define it that way. For one reason it's not
how the term is commonly used so by using it this way it's very confusing.
By *definition*
Deceleration: to reduce the speed of: slow down
In the second place by defining it like that it means that a particle can be
both accelerating and decelerating at the same time - again confusing.
See what I mean? Saying, "The deceleration vector is..." it's well defined.
A particle can then have both an acceleration vector and a deceleration
vector. However if you say simply "Deceleration" then its confusing since it
means that the particle can be both accelerating and decelerating which,
again, is confusing.
In my opinion one should stick to the dictionary definition as "slowing
down." That way people know what you're talking about. Otherwise it makes no
sense to say that a particle is decelerating and accelerating since
according to you both can be true simultaneously.
Pmb
Spaceman
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3EA183D9...@attbi.com...
Bullshit!
You apparently have no clue about electron flow and causes of such.
MasterCougar
posted news:eLeoa.3355$xR4....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net:
>> A nitpik. Decleration is accelaration in the other direction.
>
> I don't see that
>
That's because you are an idiot.
Robert Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
>
> Bullshit!
> You apparently have no clue about electron flow and causes of such.
>
Explain interference with a double-slit causally.
Bob Kolker
>
Gauge
> On the dark and dreary 19 Apr 2003 "Pmb" <peter....@verizon.net>
> posted news:eLeoa.3355$xR4....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net:
>
> >> A nitpik. Decleration is accelaration in the other direction.
> >
> > I don't see that
> >
>
> That's because you are an idiot.
This is why I use google every now and then. I get to see really bad
errors made by the people in my killfile.
Deceleration literally means "to slow down". Only when the
acceleration is along a straight line can you meaningfully defined
deceleration as the opposite of acceleration. The Earth orbits the sun
and thus the Earth is accelerating around the Sun. It goes against the
current definition deceleration to use the " deceleration = -
acceleration" definition since it would mean that the Earth is
decelerating. This usage is not how the term is supposed to be used.
Hence the flamer MasterCougar once more shows his ignorance in yet
another ill-conceived flame.
Pmb
MasterCougar
news:e7203033.03041...@posting.google.com:
> Hence the flamer MasterCougar once more shows his ignorance in yet
> another ill-conceived flame.
>
>
Moron.
John Schoenfeld
Idiot is he who asks malformed questions and expects reasonable answers.
Mike Varney
You are an idiot for many reasons.
1. You defend Spaceman.
2. You are unable to figure out a simple physics problem written for
spaceman to solve.
3. You do not know how to use the internet to learn terminology you do not
understand:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deceleration
4. You do not realize that life does not ask questions in the manner of a
back of the book exercise, and often one has to figure out what is being
asked before one can solve the problem.
Yes, I believe I have shown that you are an idiot.
QED.
J. Todd Wasson
>moved
>> so far in so much time when we did this, but it moved this much farther
>when we
>> did that instead. Why? To find the cause, we have to know the
>relationship
>> first. Hence, math usually pops in.
>>
>> Hey guys, the atomic clock worshipping session is at my house the weekend.
>> I'll be the Great Cesium Poo Bah this "time". Who's coming?
>
>So the great "can't figure out a liquid piston engine" fool is back.
>Still mad you could not figure out that engine huh Wasson?
>
>
Huh? Why do you think I can't figure out the engine? It's pretty damn simple,
Spaceman. I merely disagreed that it would produce more power than the fuel it
was fed could release; it doesn't violate the law of conservation of energy. I
didn't say it wouldn't run. Quote where I ever said that.
Todd Wasson
Racing Software
http://PerformanceSimulations.com
My car sim
http://performancesimulations.com/scnshot4.htm
John Schoenfeld
In my view, based on the context of your question Deceleration !=
-Acceleration as a body cannot be constantly decelerating by g.
In the frame of reference at the origin, your statement is half-true.
Even still it carries unnecessary complexity.
That is,
If that frame of reference's y-axis is rotated about the x-axis a half
circle then the deceleration = -g.
I think its confusing as a galilean frame of reference transformation
of your problem could say that an object moves with negative
deceleration.
Obviously, subsituting the concept "deceleration" with "-acceleration"
would make "negative deceleration" simply "acceleration" but why
introduce this complexity in the first place? You could've said
"negative acceleration" to explicitly state that acceleration acts in
the opposite direction of the observers +y axis.
Secondly, its only half-true (in my view) as,
Deceleration can be interpreted as the velocity of a body approaching
0, but not necessarily as its velocity approaches -inf. For example,
breaking in a car will decelerate the car, but when it reaches 0
velocity it will not continue to move backwards.
Whereas your object slowing down due to gravity will begin to move
backwards when its velocity = 0. In this case, your object
"decelerated" to velocity 0, and then "accelerated" downwards, but it
did NOT **"constantly decelerate".
**My physics teacher always taught this, but it's probably just a
matter of convention. However it can lead to confusion for the unwary
and this is why
negative acceleration would be a preferred term.
JS
John Schoenfeld
> On the dark and dreary 19 Apr 2003 j.scho...@programmer.net (John
> Schoenfeld) posted news:a98beaaa.03041...@posting.google.com:
>
> > So if the object is constantly decelerating, then when it reaches
> > velocity 0, it will "decelerate" upwards and thus would never come
> > down.
> >
> >
>
> *Blink* Too stupid. Are you Driscol in disguise?
In my view, based on the context of Roberts question, Deceleration !=
-Acceleration as a body cannot be constantly decelerating by g.
In the frame of reference at the origin, Roberts statement is
half-true. Even still it carries unnecessary complexity.
That is,
If that frame of reference's y-axis is rotated about the x-axis a half
circle then the deceleration = -g.
I think its confusing as a galilean frame of reference transformation
of Roberts problem could say that an object moves with negative
deceleration.
Obviously, subsituting the concept "deceleration" with "-acceleration"
would make "negative deceleration" simply "acceleration" but why
introduce this complexity in the first place? Robert could've said
"negative acceleration" to explicitly state that acceleration acts in
the opposite direction of the observers +y axis.
Secondly, its only half-true (in my view) as,
Deceleration can be interpreted as the velocity of a body approaching
0, but not necessarily as its velocity approaches -inf. For example,
breaking in a car will decelerate the car, but when it reaches 0
velocity it will not continue to move backwards.
Whereas Roberts object slowing down due to gravity will begin to move
backwards when its velocity = 0. In this case, Roberts object
"decelerated" to velocity 0, and then "accelerated" downwards, but it
did NOT **"constantly decelerate".
**My physics teacher always taught this, but it's probably just a
matter of convention. However it can lead to confusion for the unwary.
JS
John Schoenfeld
> On the dark and dreary 19 Apr 2003 j.scho...@programmer.net (John
> Schoenfeld) posted news:a98beaaa.03041...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Roberts usage of the term "deceleration" is confusing. He implies that
> > if the rate of change of velocity is negative, then this is
> > deceleration.
> >
> >
>
> Er, no. That IS the definition of the word "deceleration"
In my view, based on the context of Roberts question, Deceleration !=
(such as yourself).
JS
John Schoenfeld
In my view, based on the context of Roberts question, Deceleration !=
matter of convention. However it can lead to confusion for the unwary.
JS
John Schoenfeld
It accelerates backwards because the brakes are applying a net forc in
the opposite direction of motion, yet the direction of motion remains
constant until velocity = 0.
But if a bodies rate of change of velocity is in the SAME DIRECTION as
the velocity then that body must be accelerating, not decelerating -
this is the conceptual mistake Robert made and continues to propagate
no doubt.
JS
JS
The Ghost In The Machine
<anti...@hotmail.com>
wrote
on Fri, 18 Apr 2003 17:27:20 -0600
<pR%na.2803$oo6....@news.uswest.net>:
>
> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
>> > And you are obsessed with dorking your son.
>>
>> Only in
> Stop! We do not need to know where you dork your son.
>
I'm not sure we need to know *if* he dorks his son. :-P
After all, this is sci.physics, not alt.sex.son.buggering. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
The Ghost In The Machine
<bobk...@attbi.com>
wrote
on Fri, 18 Apr 2003 23:23:53 GMT
<3EA0890B...@attbi.com>:
>
>
> Mike Varney wrote:
>> Spaceman can't do it! Hahahahahahahahahaha! The only thing
>> spaceman can do is his son.
>>
>
> Now I know why he is hung up on straight lines. The geodesic of the
> small colon (including the rectum) is a straight line.
Actually, the small intestine is a space-filling curve. :-)
[.sigsnip]
The Ghost In The Machine
<peter....@verizon.net>
wrote
on Fri, 18 Apr 2003 22:00:55 GMT
<rA_na.2596$xR4...@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>:
>>
>>
>> Spaceman wrote:
>> > Bob,
>> > Are you basically supporting an argument that gravity is caused by
>> > the math you worship?
>
> Oh my God! What a horrible excuse!
>
> spaceman - If I am in a car traveling 100 mph how far will I have traveled
> in 1 hour?
Depends on where the policeman is. :-)
[rest snipped]
Gauge
> On the dark and dreary 19 Apr 2003 gau...@hotmail.com (Gauge) posted
> news:e7203033.03041...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Hence the flamer MasterCougar once more shows his ignorance in yet
> > another ill-conceived flame.
> >
> >
>
> Moron.
Ooo! What a brilliant response. I guess you showed me huh?
Pmb
Robert Kolker
John Schoenfeld wrote:
>
> In my view, based on the context of your question Deceleration !=
> -Acceleration as a body cannot be constantly decelerating by g.
Near the surface of the earth the acceleration can be taken as constant.
It is not strictrly true, but it is a good approximation. We have also
ignored friction with the air for the problem.
I put the problem to Spaceman for two purposes:
1. To find out if he knows how to find the maximum or minimum of a function.
2. And to convince him the it is not a simple algebraic problem. Setting
a derivative to zero is not an algebraic process.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
John Schoenfeld wrote:
> Deceleration can be interpreted as the velocity of a body approaching
> 0, but not necessarily as its velocity approaches -inf. For example,
> breaking in a car will decelerate the car, but when it reaches 0
> velocity it will not continue to move backwards.
Deceleration is acceleration in the other direction. That it, it is
accleration with a minus sign in front of it. When a cannon ball slows
down on the eay up it is still accelarating toward the earth or
decelerating in its upward course. A change in velocity is a change in
velocity. A change in speed is a change in speed. The only thing to
settle on is the direction.
Bob Kolker
Pyriform
I can see that you are a man who is not afraid to call a spade a
geomorphology modification implement. Repeatedly.
--
Pyriform
John Schoenfeld
> >
> > Idiot is he who asks malformed questions and expects reasonable answers.
>
> You are an idiot for many reasons.
> 1. You defend Spaceman.
Such is your flawed interpretation.
> 2. You are unable to figure out a simple physics problem written for
> spaceman to solve.
The solution you failed to read was
"The answer is not quite the t = 2v/g Robert was hoping for, and
Spacemans response (or lackthereof) is appropriate given the context
of the question."
Just in case you fail to read it again,
"The answer is not quite the t = 2v/g Robert was hoping for, and
Spacemans response (or lackthereof) is appropriate given the context
of the question."
> 3. You do not know how to use the internet to learn terminology you do not
> understand:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deceleration
This point clearly illustrates your complete dependance on the
thoughts of others in order to think for yourself. There is no
authorative definition of "deceleration" and a reasonable
interpretation of such a concept is not necessarily as simple as one
might think.
A body is decelerating if the rate of change of velocity is in the
opposite direction of the velocity. Deceleration is invariant across
inertial frame of reference transformations. A body can be
decelerating on one arbitrary axis and accelerating on another,
simultaneously.
This defintion is much more concrete than your fallacy of
"deceleration is negative accleration".
> 4. You do not realize that life does not ask questions in the manner of a
> back of the book exercise, and often one has to figure out what is being
> asked before one can solve the problem.
One shouldn't need to figure out what is being asked, if the author of
that problem is writing the problem to show that someone else has a
problem figuring out that problem. In this case, the real problem is
the authors inability to formulate a problem without it being riddled
with problems.
> Yes, I believe I have shown that you are an idiot.
You believe lots of things.
John Schoenfeld
> >
> >
> > John Schoenfeld wrote:
> > > Deceleration != -Acceleration
> >
> > A nitpik. Decleration is accelaration in the other direction.
>
>
>
> as being wrong in any sense of the word. The meaning is quite clear but
> shouldn't be take literally. Whenever someone has used the term
> "Deceleration" I've always understood what was meant. The context is what
> makes it clear.
If the rate of change of velocity is in the opposite direction of
velocity then that body is decelerating. Otherwise, "deceleration"
might be "acceleration" in another frame of reference and the common
sense notion of "slowing down" means nothing.
Pmb
"John Schoenfeld" <j.scho...@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.03042...@posting.google.com...
> "Pmb" <peter....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<eLeoa.3355$xR4....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>...
> > "Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:3EA176BB...@attbi.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > John Schoenfeld wrote:
> > > > Deceleration != -Acceleration
> > >
> > > A nitpik. Decleration is accelaration in the other direction.
> >
> > I don't see that
> >
> > Deceleration = -acceleration
> >
> > as being wrong in any sense of the word. The meaning is quite clear but
> > shouldn't be take literally. Whenever someone has used the term
> > "Deceleration" I've always understood what was meant. The context is
what
> > makes it clear.
>
> If the rate of change of velocity is in the opposite direction of
> velocity then that body is decelerating.
I agree.
> Otherwise, "deceleration"
> might be "acceleration" in another frame of reference and the common
> sense notion of "slowing down" means nothing.
I agree.
Pmb
Mike Varney
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:8ok8n-...@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
> In sci.physics, Robert Kolker
> <bobk...@attbi.com>
> wrote
> on Fri, 18 Apr 2003 23:23:53 GMT
> <3EA0890B...@attbi.com>:
> >
> >
> > Mike Varney wrote:
> >> Spaceman can't do it! Hahahahahahahahahaha! The only thing
> >> spaceman can do is his son.
> >>
> >
> > Now I know why he is hung up on straight lines. The geodesic of the
> > small colon (including the rectum) is a straight line.
>
> Actually, the small intestine is a space-filling curve. :-)
I just love topology!
Mike Varney
> > > > Idiot.
> > >
> > > Idiot is he who asks malformed questions and expects reasonable
answers.
> >
> > You are an idiot for many reasons.
>
> > 4. You do not realize that life does not ask questions in the manner of
a
> > back of the book exercise, and often one has to figure out what is being
> > asked before one can solve the problem.
>
> One shouldn't need to figure out what is being asked
Then I guess there are no need for physicists.
MasterCougar
Schoenfeld) posted news:a98beaaa.03041...@posting.google.com:
> Idiot is he who asks malformed questions and expects reasonable
answers.
>
Yes, that describes Driscol to a T. However the question that was
asked of him in this thread seemed perfectly reasonable to me. Please
explain what was wrong with it, other than the fact it was asked of
Driscol.
MasterCougar
Schoenfeld) posted news:a98beaaa.03041...@posting.google.com:
> In my view, based on the context of your question Deceleration !=
> -Acceleration as a body cannot be constantly decelerating by g.
>
>
Buh bye. What a maroon.
MasterCougar
Schoenfeld) posted news:a98beaaa.03041...@posting.google.com:
> In my view, based on the context of Roberts question, Deceleration !=
> -Acceleration as a body cannot be constantly decelerating by g.
>
>
Your view is stupid. When are you going to get it? Oh, never mind,
I'm going to ignore you from now on, you are not equiped to discuss this.
MasterCougar
posted news:dBooa.57$vv6....@news.uswest.net:
> You are an idiot for many reasons.
> 1. You defend Spaceman.
>
No other reason is needed.
MasterCougar
news:e7203033.03042...@posting.google.com:
> Ooo! What a brilliant response. I guess you showed me huh?
>
>
Yup, you got what you deserive, PMB, nice attempt at disguise,...not.
John Schoenfeld
When you realize the moon doesn't decelerate about the earth, and the
earth doesn't decelerate about the sun you will realize that
deceleration != -acceleration. Deceleration means slowing down, and
since people can't think for themselves and depend on the thoughts of
others for authority, I will give a mathematical definition.
l = dv/dt for all ^v + ^dv/dt = 0
where
l = deceleration vector
^v = unit direction vector of v
^dv/dt = unit direction vector of dv/dt
My defintion works best if you consider deceleration along an
arbitrary axis, not necessarily always along the axis of motion (+y in
your problems case).
Deceleration describes a very special type of acceleration, one that
satisfies the notion of "slowing down". This definition is invariant
across any galilean frame of reference transformation. Which means
that if a body is slowing down in frame of reference A, then it's also
slowing down in frame of reference B.
The erroneous defintion, deceleration = -acceleration, loses this
common sense notion and the concept of deceleration reduces to just
plain acceleration.
JS
John Schoenfeld
> On the dark and dreary 19 Apr 2003 j.scho...@programmer.net (John
> Schoenfeld) posted news:a98beaaa.03041...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Idiot is he who asks malformed questions and expects reasonable
> answers.
> >
>
> Yes, that describes Driscol to a T. However the question that was
> asked of him in this thread seemed perfectly reasonable to me. Please
> explain what was wrong with it, other than the fact it was asked of
> Driscol.
I already did state what was wrong with it, but I will state it again.
The terminology of "constantly decelerating" describing the rate of
change of velocity due to constant gravity is inadequate.
Secondly, constant gravity is inadequate given that the range of
velocity v is not given. If v was small, then it would be reasonable
to assume constant gravitational ACCELERATION g, otherwise one would
need to also consider the initial jerk, snap, crackle, pop, etc until
the answer given is reasonably accurate for v.
s(t) = s(0) + sum(1, i=inf) s^i(0)t^i / i!
where
s(0) = initial displacement
s(t) = displacement at t
s^i(t) = i'th derivative of displacement
that is, v(t) = s^1(t)
a(t) = s^2(t)
...
The question also asked the method used to solve for t. Solving
polynomials of degree > 2 is not the easy task as implied by the
context of the question.
So if you want to show that someone is stupid, you shouldn't be asking
stupid questions.
JS