Helpful info. for Sciforums betterment.!!!

[Motor Daddy]

He knows that my physics knowledge is now vastly superior to his, and that i would absolutely demolish him in any science debate.

lol!!!

I know James R. is a good guy. DUH???

Balerion sounds a lot like James R...too...


Everybody fess up!!! Who are you, and list 'em all!

 

[origin]

I He banned me again immediately, as a "sockpuppet". He knows that my physics knowledge is now vastly superior to his, and that I would absolutely demolish him in any science debate.

Your hand waving may be superior to most people, but what you truly excel at is the art of self delusion. It is astounding. You think yourself a physiscist and yet you can barely do highschool algebra.

 

[Farsight]

...Balerion sounds a lot like James R...

I don't know him.

Your hand waving may be superior to most people...

My physics is superior to most people. A quick check of my posts will confirm that. And a quick check of yours will confirm that you're just some abusive troll. So beat it, we're having a conversation here.

 

[Motor Daddy]

I don't know him.

You don't know Balerion? How long have you been on this site? You've got to be kidding me? No?

My physics is superior to most people. A quick check of my posts will confirm that. And a quick check of yours will confirm that you're just some abusive troll. So beat it, we're having a conversation here.

How much time does it take a bowling ball to hit the dirt if I hold it 16.087 feet above the dirt, and then let it go at t=0, assuming an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 of course?

LOL

 

[Farsight]

No, I don't know Balerion. I guess he doesn't post in Physics and Maths.

16.087 feet is 4.9m and the bowling ball has accelerated to 9.8 m/s after one second. It started at 0 m/s and ended at 9.8 m/s so its average speed is 4.9 m/s. So the answer is 1s. And that's not physics, that's arithmetic. Physics is explaining how gravity works.

 

[Motor Daddy]

No, I don't know Balerion. I guess he doesn't post in Physics and Maths.

16.087 feet is 4.9m and the bowling ball has accelerated to 9.8 m/s after one second. It started at 0 m/s and ended at 9.8 m/s so its average speed is 4.9 m/s. So the answer is 1s. And that's not physics, that's arithmetic. Physics is explaining how gravity works.

How do you know it "ended at 9.8 m/s?" Suppose it was dropped from a height of 56.29 feet above the dirt? Using the same 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration, how much time does it take to hit the dirt when dropped from a height of 56.29 feet? What velocity does it hit the dirt at?

 

[Farsight]

How do you know it "ended at 9.8 m/s?"

Duh. Because of your "assuming an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 of course".

Suppose it was dropped from a height of 56.29 feet above the dirt? Using the same 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration, how much time does it take to hit the dirt when dropped from a height of 56.29 feet? What velocity does it hit the dirt at?

Boring kid's stuff. 56.29 feet is 17.157192 m, the initial velocity is zero so d=½at², v=at, and I'm going to bed. You know, I know people who have spent years learning such arithmetic, and at the end of it they get a physics degree. Only they know very little physics. And then when somebody turns up and starts talking physics, they start spitting feathers.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Duh. Because of your "assuming an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 of course".

Boring kid's stuff. 56.29 feet is 17.157192 m, the initial velocity is zero so d=½at², v=at, and I'm going to bed. You know, I know people who have spent years learning such arithmetic, and at the end of it they get a physics degree. Only they know very little physics. And then when somebody turns up and starts talking physics, they start spitting feathers.

Bravo, Farsight. That's the first time I ever recall you answering a simple physics question with some type of real math. I sincerely give you credit, more than I would have before this little conversation...But still a lot to be desired. Certainly more to catch up to Swans-On-Tea.

 

[origin]

You know, I know people who have spent years learning such arithmetic, and at the end of it they get a physics degree. Only they know very little physics. And then when somebody turns up and starts talking physics, they start spitting feathers.

You know people that got physics degrees doing arithmetic? You are really a hoot.

You said Trippy is just a chemist not a physicist. As a chemist he will have taken approximately 2 years of calculus based physics. He also will have taken physical chemistry which is quantum chemistry that is centered on the Schrödinger equation.

You think your highschool education makes you more qualified? Are you nuts?

Here's a secret, you are completely incapable of doing physics. You can sort of quote what phsyicists say, you can kind of recite the synopsis of a physics principle that has been dumbed down, but you are not capable of doing any physics. You are not capable of even understanding physics because the math is beyond you. What is really sad is you could learn all the math you needed in about 2 years by taking the math courses at a community college, but you would rather live your delusion wasting your time and making a fool of yourself on the internet.

I feel embarrased for you but luckily you are so deluded you feel fine, hell you feel superior. People can be really fascinating.:shrug:

 

[Trippy]

You said Trippy is just a chemist not a physicist. As a chemist he will have taken approximately 2 years of calculus based physics.

Pretty much nailed. I should show you the two page summary of the history of quantum mechanics I wrote at one stage.

He also will have taken physical chemistry which is quantum chemistry that is centered on the Schrödinger equation.

Yes, I have studied both physical chemistry and quantum chemistry. I don't really recall quantum chemistry being that big of a part in physical chemistry - that doesn't mean that it wasn't there, I'd have to dig my notes out and check. I also didn't take physical chemistry in my third year. My recollection of physical chemistry was that it was a lot of thermodynamics which I was studying for like... The third time (once in physics, once in geology, and a third time in chemistry). Having said all of that, I actually enrolled in a third year cosmology paper out of pleasure, but had to drop out of it to focus on my chemistry. It seems like lecturers of third year papers like to think that their department is the only department you're enrolled at. Also, the physics I have studied is enough that I, at one stage, enrolled to train in teaching Senior Physics, Senior Chemistry and Junior Science at highschool so...

I took Inorganic & Transition Metal, Organo-metallic, Organic, Aquatic, and Analytical chemistry (IIRC). To my recollection anyway, quantum chemistry was most important in organic and organometallic chemistry because it is the only way the products of some reactions can be correctly predicted.

I think of the myriad I have performed the two experiments that stick out in my mind as being the most enjoyed were measuring the charge to mass ratio of electrons and measuring blackbody radiation (and comparing it to the various approximations there-of).

I just wish I could find some of the videos that I have watched explaining things like relativity, and illustrating the effects that relativity has on objects.

 

[PhysBang]

Bravo, Farsight. That's the first time I ever recall you answering a simple physics question with some type of real math.

I suspect that he quit doing mathematics a few years back because he made some mathematical errors in public. I support his return to the math of physics and hope he will stick with it.

 

[PhysBang]

Look, here's the thread: http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?96659-Einstein-s-Gravity/page7 . Remember that one? You commented. If you're good and you know you're stuff, the trick is to throw two hundred questions at you, then suspend you for not answering questions. Shameful.

The shame here is all yours, Farsight.

You clearly avoided answering serious questions with anything more than a link. That the questions piled up was because you kept avoiding and ducking the questions with more non-answers. Not moderator behaviour.

If you are seriously trying to learn the relevant mathematics, then there may be hope for you yet.

 

[origin]

Pretty much nailed. I should show you the two page summary of the history of quantum mechanics I wrote at one stage.


Yes, I have studied both physical chemistry and quantum chemistry.

I took Physical Chemistry in my third year and that particular course was all quantum chemistry. Unfortuantely, I had the worst professor of my college career teach that course. He must have been one hell of a researcher cause he sucked as a teacher. He would do some convoluted mathematics and a student would ask for clarification and he wouldn't give any he would just say you should already know this. His motto was, "the only stupid question is the one you ask". What a dick head!

 

[Trippy]

I took Physical Chemistry in my third year and that particular course was all quantum chemistry. Unfortuantely, I had the worst professor of my college career teach that course. He must have been one hell of a researcher cause he sucked as a teacher. He would do some convoluted mathematics and a student would ask for clarification and he wouldn't give any he would just say you should already know this. His motto was, "the only stupid question is the one you ask". What a dick head!

Ouch. I had a lecturer in second year physical chemistry that was a bit like that, he put me off taking it in my third year even though quantum chemistry might actually have been of interest to me. He actually asked me one day "What can I do to make my course material more accessible to students like you." Having said that, I was kind of stoked that he at least recognised he needed to work on his presentation style.

 

[Farsight]

Bravo, Farsight. That's the first time I ever recall you answering a simple physics question with some type of real math. I sincerely give you credit, more than I would have before this little conversation...But still a lot to be desired. Certainly more to catch up to Swans-On-Tea.

People who know me know that my maths is OK. They know I've done maths tutoring up to A level. They also know that I tend to avoid it because other readers find it a turn-off. It's a bit like Hawking saying for every equation in the book the readership would be halved. Bear in mind that there are trolls who will demand math in a deliberate attempt to spoil a discussion. If I give it, it takes up my time, other readers are turned off, and then the troll says "aha that's wrong" when it isn't. The ordinary reader doesn't know, all he sees is a pile of maths and an argument, so he moves on. It's a lose-lose situation.

 

[Motor Daddy]

People who know me know that my maths is OK. They know I've done maths tutoring up to A level. They also know that I tend to avoid it because other readers find it a turn-off. It's a bit like Hawking saying for every equation in the book the readership would be halved. Bear in mind that there are trolls who will demand math in a deliberate attempt to spoil a discussion. If I give it, it takes up my time, other readers are turned off, and then the troll says "aha that's wrong" when it isn't. The ordinary reader doesn't know, all he sees is a pile of maths and an argument, so he moves on. It's a lose-lose situation.

I'm almost 100% sure that if you post math, there will be some really smart math people show up, almost immediately, to critique it for you.

I'm almost positive that someone like rpenner, or AN and CptBork, would LOVE for you to post some math...

How about it? Post what ya got!

 

[Farsight]

I don't have anything special, Motor Daddy. You know me, I'm forever referring to Einstein while the likes of CptBork dismiss what the guy said. The maths I'd talk about is stuff you've seen before. You know, like this:

$$R_{\mu \nu} - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu \nu} R + g_{\mu v} \Lambda = \frac{8 \pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu \nu}$$

$$R_{\mu \nu}$$ Ricci curvature tensor, the amount by which the volume element of a ball in a Riemannian manifold deviates from that in Euclidean space.
$$R$$ scalar curvature, the amount by which the volume of a ball in a Riemannian manifold deviates from that in Euclidean space.
$$g_{\mu \nu}$$ metric tensor.
$$\Lambda$$ cosmological constant.
$$G$$ Newton's gravitational constant, 6.67384 x 10ˉ¹¹ m³ kgˉ¹ sˉ².
$$c$$ locally-measured speed of light in vacuum.
$$T_{\mu \nu}$$ stress–energy-momentum tensor.

People will still huff and puff and sneer and carp and spit feathers and spoil discussions. Because their problem is that I know far more physics than they do.

 

[Motor Daddy]

I don't have anything special, Motor Daddy. You know me, I'm forever referring to Einstein while the likes of CptBork dismiss what the guy said. The maths I'd talk about is stuff you've seen before. You know, like this:

$$R_{\mu \nu} - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu \nu} R + g_{\mu v} \Lambda = \frac{8 \pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu \nu}$$

$$R_{\mu \nu}$$ Ricci curvature tensor, the amount by which the volume element of a ball in a Riemannian manifold deviates from that in Euclidean space.
$$R$$ scalar curvature, the amount by which the volume of a ball in a Riemannian manifold deviates from that in Euclidean space.
$$g_{\mu \nu}$$ metric tensor.
$$\Lambda$$ cosmological constant.
$$G$$ Newton's gravitational constant, 6.67384 x 10ˉ¹¹ m³ kgˉ¹ sˉ².
$$c$$ locally-measured speed of light in vacuum.
$$T_{\mu \nu}$$ stress–energy-momentum tensor.

So how far is that, and how much time elapsed?

 

[PhysBang]

I don't have anything special, Motor Daddy. You know me, I'm forever referring to Einstein while the likes of CptBork dismiss what the guy said. The maths I'd talk about is stuff you've seen before. You know, like this:

$$R_{\mu \nu} - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu \nu} R + g_{\mu v} \Lambda = \frac{8 \pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu \nu}$$

$$R_{\mu \nu}$$ Ricci curvature tensor, the amount by which the volume element of a ball in a Riemannian manifold deviates from that in Euclidean space.
$$R$$ scalar curvature, the amount by which the volume of a ball in a Riemannian manifold deviates from that in Euclidean space.
$$g_{\mu \nu}$$ metric tensor.
$$\Lambda$$ cosmological constant.
$$G$$ Newton's gravitational constant, 6.67384 x 10ˉ¹¹ m³ kgˉ¹ sˉ².
$$c$$ locally-measured speed of light in vacuum.
$$T_{\mu \nu}$$ stress–energy-momentum tensor.

People will still huff and puff and sneer and carp and spit feathers and spoil discussions. Because their problem is that I know far more physics than they do.

The problem is that none of that mathematics, the stuff that accurately describes what Einstein's theory is about, has anything to do with the crap physics you spout. Look at the cosmoquest link you provided: it is full with people asking you to show the relationship between the field equation you posted above and your ideas. Yet you refused then and you refuse now. On this very forum you put me on ignore for asking you to show how your theories work on a toy physics model of your choosing.

This is a continued pattern of deception that you carry out on board after board.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

So how far is that, and how much time elapsed?

Put some values into the formula and do the math.

Motor Daddy, you know as well as everyone else(should) that formulas are useless until used - and used correctly.