| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mike" |
| Date: |
13 Apr 2006 02:30:46 PM |
| Object: |
Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
Another attempt by the cranks of sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity to
even deny the existence of well-documented affects by calling to their
help some crooks in Equador.
Tom Roberts wrote:
Mike wrote:
If you and Roberts have any doubts theat a coriolis force for example
is a real force all you have to do is watch the water go down the sink
drain. Actually its rotation direction is different in the north and
south hemisphere,
This is an old wives' tale, aided and abetted by impoverished
entrepreneurs living near the equator who use it to extract money from
tourists.
In fact, for a typical drain, careful observations show it requires
several hours of rest after filling before the water has settled down
enough so its rotation direction is random when drained. Indeed,
computations of Coriolis force for such a drain show it to be far too
small to account for the observed direction -- asymmetries in the drain
and/or initial conditions of the water are _FAR_ more important. There
was an article in AJP a few years ago on this.
The entrepreneurs can easily control which way the drain
flows by the way they fill the container. So they walk
100 yards north of the equator and show one direction, and
walk 100 yards south of the equator and show the other.
They are in _complete_ control of the water's direction.
Amazed tourists, gullible as anywhere else, pay up.
Here you go Roberts:
"...Any one of these factors is usually more than enough to overwhelm
the small contribution of the Coriolis effect in your kitchen sink or
bathtub. Research in the 1960s showed that if you do carefully
eliminate these factors, the Coriolis effect can be observed [1,2]."
1. Shapiro, 1962, Bath Tub Vortex, Nature, v 196, pp 1080-81 (Northern
Hemisphere)
2. Trefethen, et.al., 1965, The Bath Tub Vortex in the Southern
Hemisphere, Nature, v 207, pp 1084-85
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~dvandom/Edu/newcor.html
I totally amazed of the logic some people use and their intelligence
level. I got no respect for self-proclaimed experts who cannot
understand what they read.
Mike
.
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
15 Apr 2006 07:54:19 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Centrifugal forces can be considered reactions to Centripetal forces.
No, they cannot.
When swinging a stone by a string, the force on my hand is radially
outward at radius zero, so the "centrifugal force" is zero. The force on
my hand is quite clearly the tension in the string, not "centrifugal
force". The force on the rock is also the tension on the string.
"Centrifugal force" is a _fiction_ specifically invented so one could
analyze that situation in a frame co-rotating with the rock and make
believe Newton's laws hold in the rotating frame, hence "centrifugal
force" is needed to cancel the tension of the string on the rock so the
rock remains motionless in this rotating frame. Similarly it must go to
zero at the center because there is no force that needs canceling there.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
16 Apr 2006 08:09:04 AM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
joe_avery_2005@yahoo.com wrote:
Centrifugal forces can be considered reactions to Centripetal forces.
No, they cannot.
When swinging a stone by a string, the force on my hand is radially
outward at radius zero, so the "centrifugal force" is zero. The force on
my hand is quite clearly the tension in the string, not "centrifugal
force". The force on the rock is also the tension on the string.
You are wrong.
"Centrifugal force" is a _fiction_ specifically invented so one could
analyze that situation in a frame co-rotating with the rock and make
believe Newton's laws hold in the rotating frame, hence "centrifugal
force" is needed to cancel the tension of the string on the rock so the
rock remains motionless in this rotating frame. Similarly it must go to
zero at the center because there is no force that needs canceling there.
Again wrong. A simple force analysis reveals the opposite you claim.
Mike
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
16 Apr 2006 08:17:55 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1145192944.690838.308150@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Tom Roberts wrote:
joe_avery_2005@yahoo.com wrote:
Centrifugal forces can be considered reactions to Centripetal forces.
No, they cannot.
When swinging a stone by a string, the force on my hand is radially
outward at radius zero, so the "centrifugal force" is zero. The force on
my hand is quite clearly the tension in the string, not "centrifugal
force". The force on the rock is also the tension on the string.
You are wrong.
"Centrifugal force" is a _fiction_ specifically invented so one could
analyze that situation in a frame co-rotating with the rock and make
believe Newton's laws hold in the rotating frame, hence "centrifugal
force" is needed to cancel the tension of the string on the rock so the
rock remains motionless in this rotating frame. Similarly it must go to
zero at the center because there is no force that needs canceling there.
Again wrong. A simple force analysis reveals the opposite you claim.
Three in a row:
"Physics 101 re-invented again once more":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Physics101ter.html
Mike, we love you - keep digging!
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
16 Apr 2006 08:54:04 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1145192944.690838.308150@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Tom Roberts wrote:
joe_avery_2005@yahoo.com wrote:
Centrifugal forces can be considered reactions to Centripetal forces.
No, they cannot.
When swinging a stone by a string, the force on my hand is radially
outward at radius zero, so the "centrifugal force" is zero. The force on
my hand is quite clearly the tension in the string, not "centrifugal
force". The force on the rock is also the tension on the string.
You are wrong.
"Centrifugal force" is a _fiction_ specifically invented so one could
analyze that situation in a frame co-rotating with the rock and make
believe Newton's laws hold in the rotating frame, hence "centrifugal
force" is needed to cancel the tension of the string on the rock so the
rock remains motionless in this rotating frame. Similarly it must go to
zero at the center because there is no force that needs canceling there.
Again wrong. A simple force analysis reveals the opposite you claim.
Three in a row:
"Physics 101 re-invented again once more":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Physics101ter.html
Mike, we love you - keep digging!
Dirk Vdm
If you are a grown up responsible person you must understand when
legitimate debate ends and harassment starts, an activity that is
punishable by law. You keep harassing me in every post I reply to other
people and this constitutes a repeat offense I am kindly asking you to
terminate immediately or face the consequences.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
16 Apr 2006 08:58:50 AM |
|
|
"Mike"
aka Eleatis
aka Undeniable
aka Bill Smith
<eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1145195644.096824.68060@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1145192944.690838.308150@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Tom Roberts wrote:
joe_avery_2005@yahoo.com wrote:
Centrifugal forces can be considered reactions to Centripetal forces.
No, they cannot.
When swinging a stone by a string, the force on my hand is radially
outward at radius zero, so the "centrifugal force" is zero. The force on
my hand is quite clearly the tension in the string, not "centrifugal
force". The force on the rock is also the tension on the string.
You are wrong.
"Centrifugal force" is a _fiction_ specifically invented so one could
analyze that situation in a frame co-rotating with the rock and make
believe Newton's laws hold in the rotating frame, hence "centrifugal
force" is needed to cancel the tension of the string on the rock so the
rock remains motionless in this rotating frame. Similarly it must go to
zero at the center because there is no force that needs canceling there.
Again wrong. A simple force analysis reveals the opposite you claim.
Three in a row:
"Physics 101 re-invented again once more":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Physics101ter.html
Mike, we love you - keep digging!
Dirk Vdm
If you are a grown up responsible person you must understand when
legitimate debate ends and harassment starts
Trolls cannot be harassed in the technical sense.
, an activity that is
punishable by law. You keep harassing me in every post I reply to other
people and this constitutes a repeat offense I am kindly asking you to
terminate immediately or face the consequences.
Try me, troll - I've got plenty to show ;-)
Here's a few to warm up.
29-Jan-2006:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/18246d2052b351eb
| You are now "plonked" for good idiot. Anyway, you contribute nothing in
| these ng's other than psychosis and stupidity. I stick with it now and
| you "stock" your merde some place else.
1-Sep-2005:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/1b0256e5a1ad48b0
| Gee, Cantor, Goedel, Peano and the others would be proud of you Dirt.
| Especially if they knew that besides that you also understand the
| square root.
|
| Plonk
|
| Mike
5-Feb-2005:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/986fdd22eebc33b9
| You got nothing to say, proven fact. You spend your whole misearable
| days maintaining a site where you store your impotence and psychotic
| behavior.
|
| I had enough with you schizo, a killfile will do it and then a clean of
| the Dirt you left around making pooppies all over the place.
|
| Mike
25-Sep-2004:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/e5cfae098ed3d0a1
| Hi Dirk, Are you still working on a definition of sqrt? You and Alex
| can make a nice team. He thinks there is no time so you got all the
| time in the world to think about sqrt.
|
| Plonk Dirk
|
| Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
16 Apr 2006 01:54:54 PM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
joe_avery_2005@yahoo.com wrote:
Centrifugal forces can be considered reactions to Centripetal forces.
No, they cannot.
When swinging a stone by a string, the force on my hand is radially
outward at radius zero, so the "centrifugal force" is zero. The force on
my hand is quite clearly the tension in the string, not "centrifugal
force". The force on the rock is also the tension on the string.
You are wrong.
No, he's quite right. And if you look in a basic physics text, this is
precisely what you'll see.
PD
"Centrifugal force" is a _fiction_ specifically invented so one could
analyze that situation in a frame co-rotating with the rock and make
believe Newton's laws hold in the rotating frame, hence "centrifugal
force" is needed to cancel the tension of the string on the rock so the
rock remains motionless in this rotating frame. Similarly it must go to
zero at the center because there is no force that needs canceling there.
Again wrong. A simple force analysis reveals the opposite you claim.
Mike
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Trivilino" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
16 Apr 2006 02:14:45 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote ...
Mike wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
joe_avery_2005@yahoo.com wrote:
Centrifugal forces can be considered reactions to Centripetal forces.
No, they cannot.
When swinging a stone by a string, the force on my hand is radially
outward at radius zero, so the "centrifugal force" is zero. The force
on
my hand is quite clearly the tension in the string, not "centrifugal
force". The force on the rock is also the tension on the string.
You are wrong.
No, he's quite right. And if you look in a basic physics text, this is
precisely what you'll see.
Take a look at the connection between the string and the rock. The string
exerts a centripetal force on the rock, and the rock exerts a centrifugal
force on the string. They form a Third Law pair.
The confusion arises when a Freshman claims there is a centrifugal force on
the rock. You have to wait until you're a Junior before you can do that!
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
16 Apr 2006 05:55:30 PM |
|
|
"Herman Trivilino" <physhead@kingwoodREMOVECAPScable.com> wrote in message news:1145214635_27343@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote ...
Take a look at the connection between the string and the rock. The string
exerts a centripetal force on the rock, and the rock exerts a centrifugal
force on the string. They form a Third Law pair.
The use of 'centrifugal force' for the force the rock
exerts on the string is bad terminology. No one can
argue with the fact that there is a reaction force on
the string and that this force is centrifugally directed
but to call this 'centrifugal force' is bad practice and
can cause endless confusion, particularly to the OP
of this thread.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Trivilino" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
17 Apr 2006 07:31:26 PM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote ...
Take a look at the connection between the string and the rock. The
string
exerts a centripetal force on the rock, and the rock exerts a centrifugal
force on the string. They form a Third Law pair.
The use of 'centrifugal force' for the force the rock
exerts on the string is bad terminology. No one can
argue with the fact that there is a reaction force on
the string and that this force is centrifugally directed
but to call this 'centrifugal force' is bad practice and
can cause endless confusion, particularly to the OP
of this thread.
It could. But there are other ways to look at it.
For example, the words centripetal and centrifugal are merely adjectives,
used to describe the direction of the force. It is just as correct to say
that there is a centrifugal force on the string as there is to say there is
a downward force on my chair.
I exert a downward force on my chair.
My chair exerts an upward force on me.
An example of Newton's Third Law.
The string exerts an inward force on the rock.
The rock exerts an outward force on the string.
An example of Newton's Third Law.
Perhaps the OP will see that "centripetal" is a synonym for "inward".
Likewise, "centrifugal" is a synonym for "outward".
The string exerts a centripetal force on the rock.
The rock exerts a centrigugal force on the string.
An example of Newton's Third Law.
One never knows what the OP will see. And one teacher's bad practice is
another's gem.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
17 Apr 2006 02:32:19 AM |
|
|
Martin Hogbin wrote:
"Herman Trivilino" <physhead@kingwoodREMOVECAPScable.com> wrote in message news:1145214635_27343@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote ...
Take a look at the connection between the string and the rock. The string
exerts a centripetal force on the rock, and the rock exerts a centrifugal
force on the string. They form a Third Law pair.
The use of 'centrifugal force' for the force the rock
exerts on the string is bad terminology. No one can
argue with the fact that there is a reaction force on
the string and that this force is centrifugally directed
but to call this 'centrifugal force' is bad practice and
can cause endless confusion, particularly to the OP
of this thread.
You are one of the two or three confused here. You say it acts like
centrifugal, it smells like centrifugal but do not call it centrifugal
because someone like you might get confused. So be it. Get confused. We
are not going to mess physics so that you avoid confusion.
At least PD can come up with innovative arguments. Appealing on
confusion is a ridiculus thing to do.
Mike
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
17 Apr 2006 04:29:14 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1145259139.108655.13220@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Hogbin wrote:
"Herman Trivilino" <physhead@kingwoodREMOVECAPScable.com> wrote in message
news:1145214635_27343@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote ...
Take a look at the connection between the string and the rock. The string
exerts a centripetal force on the rock, and the rock exerts a centrifugal
force on the string. They form a Third Law pair.
The use of 'centrifugal force' for the force the rock
exerts on the string is bad terminology. No one can
argue with the fact that there is a reaction force on
the string and that this force is centrifugally directed
but to call this 'centrifugal force' is bad practice and
can cause endless confusion, particularly to the OP
of this thread.
You are one of the two or three confused here. You say it acts like
centrifugal,
No, it does not act like centrifugal force. In a rotating frame of
reference the centrifugal force acts on all objects with mass
(unless they are at the centre of rotation) and is _proportional
to the mass of the body on which it acts_.
The reaction force on the string does act in a centrifugal direction
but is _quite independent of the mass of the string_. It is thus
completely different in character from the centrifugal force which
is invoked in a rotating frame.
it smells like centrifugal but do not call it centrifugal
because someone like you might get confused. So be it. Get confused.
I really cannot see your problem. You have two different forces,
which have one property in common (centrifugal direction) yet you
propose to give them the same name.
We
are not going to mess physics so that you avoid confusion.
There is no need to mess with anything. You must agree that there is
some difference between the two types of 'centrifugal' force. (Please
say if you do not) Why, then, would you want to give them exactly
the same name?
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Trivilino" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
17 Apr 2006 07:39:27 PM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote ...
There is no need to mess with anything. You must agree that there is
some difference between the two types of 'centrifugal' force. (Please
say if you do not) Why, then, would you want to give them exactly
the same name?
There could be lots of differences between them. One might be a tension in
a string, another might be gravity. And often, the term refers to a sum of
forces, and not to any one force.
But to answer your question, the reason we call any force a centrifugal
force is because it's directed away from the center of rotation. That's why
they have exactly the same adjective.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
18 Apr 2006 03:43:41 AM |
|
|
"Herman Trivilino" <physhead@kingwoodREMOVECAPScable.com> wrote in message news:1145320513_37817@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote ...
There is no need to mess with anything. You must agree that there is
some difference between the two types of 'centrifugal' force. (Please
say if you do not) Why, then, would you want to give them exactly
the same name?
There could be lots of differences between them. One might be a tension in
a string, another might be gravity. And often, the term refers to a sum of
forces, and not to any one force.
But to answer your question, the reason we call any force a centrifugal
force is because it's directed away from the center of rotation. That's why
they have exactly the same adjective.
'We' do not call the centrifugally directed reaction force
'centrifugal force'. Nearly all physicists reserve that term for
the mass-dependent force that is invoked in a rotating frame
of reference. I have seen the term loosely used in the way
you describe but this is bad practice; you can see the
confusion it causes.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
20 Apr 2006 06:48:22 PM |
|
|
Herman Trivilino wrote:
the reason we call any force a centrifugal force is because it's
directed away from the center of rotation.
I suppose you are linguistically correct, but usage by physicists is not
like that -- we use the term "centrifugal force" only for the term
m w x (w x r) (m=mass, w=angular rotation 3-vector,
r=position 3-vector)
This is strictly coordinate dependent and is applicable only in a frame
rotating with angular velocity w.
So, for instance, we would not call the downwash from a helicopter
"centrifugal force" even though it is directed away from the center of
rotation in a rotating frame centered on the earth. Ditto for the
downward thrust of a rocket being launched. Etc.
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
17 Apr 2006 04:24:17 AM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message news:8OKdnUm3iJ4jyt7ZRVnyjA@bt.com...
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1145259139.108655.13220@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Hogbin wrote:
"Herman Trivilino" <physhead@kingwoodREMOVECAPScable.com> wrote in message
news:1145214635_27343@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote ...
Take a look at the connection between the string and the rock. The string
exerts a centripetal force on the rock, and the rock exerts a centrifugal
force on the string. They form a Third Law pair.
The use of 'centrifugal force' for the force the rock
exerts on the string is bad terminology. No one can
argue with the fact that there is a reaction force on
the string and that this force is centrifugally directed
but to call this 'centrifugal force' is bad practice and
can cause endless confusion, particularly to the OP
of this thread.
You are one of the two or three confused here. You say it acts like
centrifugal,
No, it does not act like centrifugal force. In a rotating frame of
reference the centrifugal force acts on all objects with mass
(unless they are at the centre of rotation) and is _proportional
to the mass of the body on which it acts_.
The reaction force on the string does act in a centrifugal direction
but is _quite independent of the mass of the string_. It is thus
completely different in character from the centrifugal force which
is invoked in a rotating frame.
it smells like centrifugal but do not call it centrifugal
because someone like you might get confused. So be it. Get confused.
I really cannot see your problem. You have two different forces,
which have one property in common (centrifugal direction) yet you
propose to give them the same name.
We
are not going to mess physics so that you avoid confusion.
There is no need to mess with anything. You must agree that there is
some difference between the two types of 'centrifugal' force. (Please
say if you do not) Why, then, would you want to give them exactly
the same name?
Martin, whatever you manage to drag out of him at this point,
I don't think I will add another entry to the series :-)
Trop if too much, right?
Sorry - couldn't resist - do carry on :-)
Cheers,
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
17 Apr 2006 05:30:38 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:59J0g.376852$vE3.10805301@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message news:8OKdnUm3iJ4jyt7ZRVnyjA@bt.com...
There is no need to mess with anything. You must agree that there is
some difference between the two types of 'centrifugal' force. (Please
say if you do not) Why, then, would you want to give them exactly
the same name?
Martin, whatever you manage to drag out of him at this point,
I don't think I will add another entry to the series :-)
Trop if too much, right?
Sorry - couldn't resist - do carry on :-)
I know it is hard work but one day we may find someone
who is not a complete crackpot.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
17 Apr 2006 07:35:29 AM |
|
|
Martin Hogbin wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:59J0g.376852$vE3.10805301@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message news:8OKdnUm3iJ4jyt7ZRVnyjA@bt.com...
There is no need to mess with anything. You must agree that there is
some difference between the two types of 'centrifugal' force. (Please
say if you do not) Why, then, would you want to give them exactly
the same name?
No there is not. I am nit talking about the rotating frame. I indicated
to you before that you jump around dancing between reference frames. In
the inertial frame, by Newton's third law, the reaction to the
centripetal force is the centrifugal force. This is very basic. If you
do not understand that we have no common basis for any discussion. You
can continue the discussion with van der Vomit which you seem to
patronize well.
Martin, whatever you manage to drag out of him at this point,
I don't think I will add another entry to the series :-)
Trop if too much, right?
Sorry - couldn't resist - do carry on :-)
I know it is hard work but one day we may find someone
who is not a complete crackpot.
You must learn basic physics before, understand Newton's laws and then
after sufficient time passes and you have done both your theoretical
and experimental duties to question yourself. Those who llok foR
crackpots as their main activity, like van der Vomit, are
psychoneurotic individuals with paranoia flashes.
Mike
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
17 Apr 2006 08:37:01 AM |
|
|
"Mike"
aka Eleatis
aka Undeniable
aka Bill Smith
<eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1145277329.442879.27070@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Martin Hogbin wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:59J0g.376852$vE3.10805301@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message news:8OKdnUm3iJ4jyt7ZRVnyjA@bt.com...
There is no need to mess with anything. You must agree that there is
some difference between the two types of 'centrifugal' force. (Please
say if you do not) Why, then, would you want to give them exactly
the same name?
No there is not. I am nit talking about the rotating frame.
Of course.
You enter a room and shout at someone:
"Hey idiot, you are sitting on the table!".
- "Sorry, chap, we call this thing a chair."
"It is a table and you are sitting on it, idiot!"
- "Sorry, idiot, we all call it a chair, live with it."
"Idiots, when I put a chess board on it, it is a table,
and you are sitting on my table!"
- "Right, here you go then:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Physics101quater.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Physics101ter.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Physics101bis.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Physics101.html
Capice?
I indicated
to you before that you jump around dancing between reference frames. In
the inertial frame, by Newton's third law, the reaction to the
centripetal force is the centrifugal force. This is very basic. If you
do not understand that we have no common basis for any discussion. You
can continue the discussion with van der Vomit which you seem to
patronize well.
Martin, whatever you manage to drag out of him at this point,
I don't think I will add another entry to the series :-)
Trop if too much, right?
Sorry - couldn't resist - do carry on :-)
I know it is hard work but one day we may find someone
who is not a complete crackpot.
You must learn basic physics before, understand Newton's laws and then
after sufficient time passes and you have done both your theoretical
and experimental duties to question yourself. Those who llok foR
crackpots as their main activity, like van der Vomit, are
psychoneurotic individuals with paranoia flashes.
Nah, stop projecting, and stop kiddin' yourself.
They are just interested in a particular aspect of
human behaviour... and very very very amused
by your peculiar implementation of it :-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
17 Apr 2006 10:46:02 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike"
aka Eleatis
aka Undeniable
aka Bill Smith
<eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1145277329.442879.27070@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Martin Hogbin wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:59J0g.376852$vE3.10805301@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message news:8OKdnUm3iJ4jyt7ZRVnyjA@bt.com...
There is no need to mess with anything. You must agree that there is
some difference between the two types of 'centrifugal' force. (Please
say if you do not) Why, then, would you want to give them exactly
the same name?
No there is not. I am nit talking about the rotating frame.
Of course.
You enter a room and shout at someone:
"Hey idiot, you are sitting on the table!".
- "Sorry, chap, we call this thing a chair."
"It is a table and you are sitting on it, idiot!"
- "Sorry, idiot, we all call it a chair, live with it."
"Idiots, when I put a chess board on it, it is a table,
and you are sitting on my table!"
- "Right, here you go then:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Physics101quater.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Physics101ter.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Physics101bis.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Physics101.html
Capice?
I indicated
to you before that you jump around dancing between reference frames. In
the inertial frame, by Newton's third law, the reaction to the
centripetal force is the centrifugal force. This is very basic. If you
do not understand that we have no common basis for any discussion. You
can continue the discussion with van der Vomit which you seem to
patronize well.
Martin, whatever you manage to drag out of him at this point,
I don't think I will add another entry to the series :-)
Trop if too much, right?
Sorry - couldn't resist - do carry on :-)
I know it is hard work but one day we may find someone
who is not a complete crackpot.
You must learn basic physics before, understand Newton's laws and then
after sufficient time passes and you have done both your theoretical
and experimental duties to question yourself. Those who llok foR
crackpots as their main activity, like van der Vomit, are
psychoneurotic individuals with paranoia flashes.
Nah, stop projecting, and stop kiddin' yourself.
They are just interested in a particular aspect of
human behaviour... and very very very amused
by your peculiar implementation of it :-)
Dirk Vdm
If you are a grown up responsible person you must understand when
legitimate debate ends and harassment starts, an activity that is
punishable by law. You keep harassing me in every post I reply to other
people and this constitutes a repeat offense I am kindly asking you to
terminate immediately or face the consequences.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
17 Apr 2006 10:51:57 AM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
If you are a grown up responsible person you must understand when
legitimate debate ends and harassment starts, an activity that is
punishable by law. You keep harassing me in every post I reply to other
people
you mean like this?
and this constitutes a repeat offense I am kindly asking you to
terminate immediately or face the consequences.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
17 Apr 2006 11:06:36 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Mike wrote:
If you are a grown up responsible person you must understand when
legitimate debate ends and harassment starts, an activity that is
punishable by law. You keep harassing me in every post I reply to other
people
you mean like this?
and this constitutes a repeat offense I am kindly asking you to
terminate immediately or face the consequences.
Mike
Are you and Dork van der Vomit the same person? if not, why are you
answering my post to him? The "reaction" to my "action".
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
17 Apr 2006 11:40:59 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1145289996.001246.85640@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
PD wrote:
Mike wrote:
If you are a grown up responsible person you must understand when
legitimate debate ends and harassment starts, an activity that is
punishable by law. You keep harassing me in every post I reply to other
people
you mean like this?
good one :-)
and this constitutes a repeat offense I am kindly asking you to
terminate immediately or face the consequences.
Mike
Are you and Dork van der Vomit the same person? if not, why are you
answering my post to him? The "reaction" to my "action".
What makes you think Paul was actually talking to you?
You blabber about people sitting on your chess table, but
you don't even properly play the game, do you?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
17 Apr 2006 11:45:44 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1145289996.001246.85640@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
PD wrote:
Mike wrote:
If you are a grown up responsible person you must understand when
legitimate debate ends and harassment starts, an activity that is
punishable by law. You keep harassing me in every post I reply to other
people
you mean like this?
good one :-)
and this constitutes a repeat offense I am kindly asking you to
terminate immediately or face the consequences.
Mike
Are you and Dork van der Vomit the same person? if not, why are you
answering my post to him? The "reaction" to my "action".
What makes you think Paul was actually talking to you?
You blabber about people sitting on your chess table, but
you don't even properly play the game, do you?
Dirk Vdm
If you are a grown up responsible person you must understand when
legitimate debate ends and harassment starts, an activity that is
punishable by law. You keep harassing me in every post I reply to other
people and this constitutes a repeat offense I am kindly asking you to
terminate immediately or face the consequences.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
17 Apr 2006 04:20:18 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1145277329.442879.27070@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Martin Hogbin wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:59J0g.376852$vE3.10805301@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message news:8OKdnUm3iJ4jyt7ZRVnyjA@bt.com...
There is no need to mess with anything. You must agree that there is
some difference between the two types of 'centrifugal' force. (Please
say if you do not) Why, then, would you want to give them exactly
the same name?
No there is not. I am nit talking about the rotating frame.
Neither was I. I simply pointed out that in a rotating frame
we have something called cenrifugal force which depends
on the mass of the object on which it acts.
I fully understand that you were talking about a non-rotating
frame. That makes what everyone else calls centrifugal force
and what you call centrifugal force even more different.
To spell it out for you:
To the world's physicists, centrifugal force is a force that only
exists in rotating frames of reference and is proportional
(for a given position) to the mass of the object on which it acts.
To you, centrifugal force exists in a non-rotating frame and
does not depend on the mass of the object in which it acts.
That is two different things. Why give them the same name?
I indicated
to you before that you jump around dancing between reference frames.
No, you give the same name to two different things. (Or is it only
your version that you give the name 'centrifugal' to?)
In
the inertial frame, by Newton's third law, the reaction to the
centripetal force is the centrifugal force.
None of Newton's laws assigns names to forces. We have already agreed
that there is a reaction force and that it acts centrifugally. It is only the
name that is in dispute.
You must learn basic physics before, understand Newton's laws and then
after sufficient time passes and you have done both your theoretical
and experimental duties to question yourself. Those who llok foR
crackpots as their main activity, like van der Vomit, are
psychoneurotic individuals with paranoia flashes.
Dirk clearly understands the subject far better than you do.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
18 Apr 2006 06:04:25 PM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message =
news:zdudnRgNVOfzY97ZnZ2dnUVZ8t2dnZ2d@bt.com...
|=20
| "Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message =
news:1145277329.442879.27070@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > Martin Hogbin wrote:
| > > "Dirk Van de moortel" =
<dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > > news:59J0g.376852$vE3.10805301@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| > > >
| > > > "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message =
news:8OKdnUm3iJ4jyt7ZRVnyjA@bt.com...
| > > > > There is no need to mess with anything. You must agree that =
there is
| > > > > some difference between the two types of 'centrifugal' force. =
(Please
| > > > > say if you do not) Why, then, would you want to give them =
exactly
| > > > > the same name?
| >
| > No there is not. I am nit talking about the rotating frame.
|=20
| Neither was I. I simply pointed out that in a rotating frame
| we have something called cenrifugal force which depends
| on the mass of the object on which it acts.
Which frame is the rotating frame, the bottle or Mickey?
http://tinyurl.com/jb9rx
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
17 Apr 2006 04:04:45 PM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message news:zdudnRgNVOfzY97ZnZ2dnUVZ8t2dnZ2d@bt.com...
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1145277329.442879.27070@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Martin Hogbin wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:59J0g.376852$vE3.10805301@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message news:8OKdnUm3iJ4jyt7ZRVnyjA@bt.com...
There is no need to mess with anything. You must agree that there is
some difference between the two types of 'centrifugal' force. (Please
say if you do not) Why, then, would you want to give them exactly
the same name?
No there is not. I am nit talking about the rotating frame.
Neither was I. I simply pointed out that in a rotating frame
we have something called cenrifugal force which depends
on the mass of the object on which it acts.
I fully understand that you were talking about a non-rotating
frame. That makes what everyone else calls centrifugal force
and what you call centrifugal force even more different.
To spell it out for you:
To the world's physicists, centrifugal force is a force that only
exists in rotating frames of reference and is proportional
(for a given position) to the mass of the object on which it acts.
To you, centrifugal force exists in a non-rotating frame and
does not depend on the mass of the object in which it acts.
That is two different things. Why give them the same name?
I indicated
to you before that you jump around dancing between reference frames.
No, you give the same name to two different things. (Or is it only
your version that you give the name 'centrifugal' to?)
In
the inertial frame, by Newton's third law, the reaction to the
centripetal force is the centrifugal force.
None of Newton's laws assigns names to forces. We have already agreed
that there is a reaction force and that it acts centrifugally. It is only the
name that is in dispute.
You must learn basic physics before, understand Newton's laws and then
after sufficient time passes and you have done both your theoretical
and experimental duties to question yourself. Those who llok foR
crackpots as their main activity, like van der Vomit, are
psychoneurotic individuals with paranoia flashes.
Dirk clearly understands the subject far better than you do.
.... and, if you forgive me this little perversity, in this
particular troll's case, that's how, for obvious and
well documented reasons, I like to keep it. Heh ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
17 Apr 2006 04:07:05 PM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message news:zdudnRgNVOfzY97ZnZ2dnUVZ8t2dnZ2d@bt.com...
um, Martin, could it be that your (or your ISP's) clock is
a bit off track?
You seem to be posting into the future and surely you're
not going FTL, are you?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
17 Apr 2006 04:43:05 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZrT0g.377800$jU7.11024520@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message news:zdudnRgNVOfzY97ZnZ2dnUVZ8t2dnZ2d@bt.com...
um, Martin, could it be that your (or your ISP's) clock is
a bit off track?
You seem to be posting into the future and surely you're
not going FTL, are you?
Sorted.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
17 Apr 2006 09:04:32 AM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Martin Hogbin wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:59J0g.376852$vE3.10805301@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message news:8OKdnUm3iJ4jyt7ZRVnyjA@bt.com...
There is no need to mess with anything. You must agree that there is
some difference between the two types of 'centrifugal' force. (Please
say if you do not) Why, then, would you want to give them exactly
the same name?
No there is not. I am nit talking about the rotating frame. I indicated
to you before that you jump around dancing between reference frames. In
the inertial frame, by Newton's third law, the reaction to the
centripetal force is the centrifugal force.
This would be very bad in an inertial frame. Allow me to explain why.
Suppose we have a rock (tied to a string) that is going around in a
circle in an inertial frame. According to you, there are two forces
acting on the rock, the centripetal force (inward, supplied by the
string) and the centrifugal force (outward, supplied by ... well, you
say by absolute space). The net force on the rock, then, would be zero.
However, this would violate both Newton's 2nd law and Newton's 1st law,
since an object with a net force of zero acting on it would also have
to exhibit an acceleration of zero. But the acceleration of the rock is
plainly not zero, because it is going around in a circle which
intrinsically involves an acceleration (a change in the direction of
the velocity vector, you see). By virtue of the circular motion, we
know that the rock *cannot* be in dynamic equilibrium in an inertial
frame. And in fact, we find that the centripetal force (supplied by the
string) is *precisely* what is required to account for the acceleration
of the rock. Thus the centrifugal "force" is not required at all to
account for the observed motion in the inertial frame. And if it's not
required to account for the motion, and if we can't attribute its agent
to anything other than ... well, "absolute space", whatever that
means... then what purpose does it serve?
This is very basic. If you
do not understand that we have no common basis for any discussion.
Exactly my point. It's very basic. If you do not understand it, we have
no common basis for any discussion.
You
can continue the discussion with van der Vomit which you seem to
patronize well.
Martin, whatever you manage to drag out of him at this point,
I don't think I will add another entry to the series :-)
Trop if too much, right?
Sorry - couldn't resist - do carry on :-)
I know it is hard work but one day we may find someone
who is not a complete crackpot.
You must learn basic physics before, understand Newton's laws and then
after sufficient time passes and you have done both your theoretical
and experimental duties to question yourself. Those who llok foR
crackpots as their main activity, like van der Vomit, are
psychoneurotic individuals with paranoia flashes.
Mike
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Another attempt by the cranks to fool people |
17 Apr 2006 10:42:10 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Mike wrote:
Martin Hogbin wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:59J0g.376852$vE3.10805301@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message news:8OKdnUm3iJ4jyt7ZRVnyjA@bt.com...
There is no need to mess with anything. You must agree that there is
some difference between the two types of 'centrifugal' force. (Please
say if you do not) Why, then, would you want to give them exactly
the same name?
No there is not. I am nit talking about the rotating frame. I indicated
to you before that you jump around dancing between reference frames. In
the inertial frame, by Newton's third law, the reaction to the
centripetal force is the centrifugal force.
This would be very bad in an inertial frame. Allow me to explain why.
Suppose we have a rock (tied to a string) that is going around in a
circle in an inertial frame. According to you, there are two forces
acting on the rock, the centripetal force (inward, supplied by the
string) and the centrifugal force (outward, supplied by ... well, you
say by absolute space).
I have never, never said that. This will violated basic physics. Look
at my posts. the centrifugal is acting on the hand or post or whatever
the rope is attached to. Come on, do you want to have a serious
discussion?
The net force on the rock, then, would be zero.
However, this would violate both Newton's 2nd law and Newton's 1st law,
since an object with a net force of zero acting on it would also have
to exhibit an acceleration of zero. But the acceleration of the rock is
plainly not zero, because it is going around in a circle which
intrinsically involves an acceleration (a change in the direction of
the velocity vector, you see). By virtue of the circular motion, we
know that the rock *cannot* be in dynamic equilibrium in an inertial
frame. And in fact, we find that the centripetal force (supplied by the
string) is *precisely* what is required to account for the acceleration
of the rock. Thus the centrifugal "force" is not required at all to
account for the observed motion in the inertial frame. And if it's not
required to account for the motion, and if we can't attribute its agent
to anything other than ... well, "absolute space", whatever that
means... then what purpose does it serve?
You wrtings come from a misunderstanding of my postings. Either you
cannot read or you intentionaly misrepresent my postings. Read again
carefully what i have written and come back. Please do not come back
with misrepresentations.
I summarize:
In inertial frame: centrifugal is reaction to centripetal as of
Newton's third law. In this frame these forces are real with measurable
effects.
In non-inertial frame. centrifugal force must impress on the rock to
explain the state of rest. This is again explained by simple force
analysis. When talking the origin to a frame co-moving with the rock,
the centrifugal force, which is a real force, must be also carried
along and subracted from the centripetal to have the state of rest. It
is just standard force analysis.
In both frames, the same real force is used. Remeber Newton's thrid law
applies only in inertial frames that is why in the second case we are
not talking about a reaction any longer but a balancing force. Newton's
argument was that in that frame. the reactions are wrt an absolute
space, for both centripetal and centrifugal forces. This is because,
for Newton inertial frames are special and non-inertial frames are the
wrong choice of a FoR to apply his laws.
This is simple physics. Of course, some twist around the meanings for
the purpose of pushing through their own agenda. Reality and experiment
shows they are failures. Centrifugal forces are not ficticious, not
illusions, they are real forces in both inertial and non-inertial FoR.
Mike
This is very basic. If you
do not understand that we have no common basis for any discussion.
Exactly my point. It's very basic. If you do not understand it, we have
no common basis for any discussion.
You
can continue the discussion with van der Vomit which you seem to
patronize well.
Martin, whatever you manage to drag out of him at this point,
I don't think I will add another entry to the series :-)
Trop if too much, right?
Sorry - couldn't resist - do carry on :-)
I know it is hard work but one day we may find someone
who is not a complete crackpot.
You must learn basic physics before, understand Newton's laws and then
after sufficient time passes and you have done both your theoretical
and experimental duties to question yourself. Those who llok foR
crackpots as their main activity, like van der Vomit, are
psychoneurotic individuals with paranoia flashes.
Mike
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Snickering Fool
Check out "Weird pictures will fool you" in alt.binaries.pictures.misc
***** my tight ***** til I ***** on your *****, we fear them, then we virtually irrigate Bernadette and Oris's solid sauce, Smoking Fool.
ONLY A FOOL OR A NINCOMPOOP WOULD DETAIN THE MOUNTAINNS AND MOUNTAINSOF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT CONFIRMS, BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT, THAT THEBUSH ADMINISTRATION ORCHESTRATED 911
Re: Bilge, you pathetic, old fool.
Re: Cantor: ignorant, harmless fool or intentional liar?
Re: Deco is a racist and Old Fool!!!!
Mathforge.net :: The Abel Prize, Math in Prison, Complex Analysis, and April Fool's Pranks
| Re: Deco is a racist and Old Fool!!!!
April Fool's Joke?
Re: Wonderful Proofs by LORD Almighty GOD: RFC's Bed-ridden Pastorio died on Fool's Day and ragin satan's atheist sockpuppet (demon) flails about pitifully pining for attention.
Re: Yet another fossil fool who confuses "weather" with "climate."
Re: List of Cranks here
What cranks have been run out of this group?
Re: List of Cranks here
|
|
|
