Einstein you have peeked my interest and brought up a question I had never thought to ask thru 1/2 a dozen chemistry classes. How do we determine a mole of anything if there is no reference of weight. If I measure 12 grams of carbon 12 I have 1 mole of carbon 12. How do I measure it in a weightless state. I can't count molecules to 6.02 x 10^23 and then say I have 1 mole and therefore 12 grams of carbon 12. I need moles and grams to do stoichiometric calculations. For 12 years I had Ksp's, enthalpies of formation, moles, and grams that let me do my job. I never considered having to think about them without weight. I had the same professor for 4 classes and he gave me a CRC handbook. I've never considered that the book may be useless in space or on another planet. I feel that I must be missing something and weight as determined by gravity is not the only consideration. I am irritated by this thought. I has been 15 years since I left that job and I'm sure I have just forgotten something. Or maybe it's something I never knew. I've come to depend on Darby's input to some of the questions posted on this site and I hope he has something this time too. I just think it bothers me that I never thought of it before. Stupid Gravity.
Time is fractured
- Thread starter elle
- Start date
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
Gpa
You have brought up another interesting point. In chemistry, mass appears to refer to a quantity of atoms. And I was taught to use a balance rather than a scale to measure mass. On the balance, mass is always a ratio of a standard calibrated quantity of mass to an unknown amount of mass. So you could use a balance on another planet or the moon and still come out with the correct amount of mass. But a scale would show a different amount of weight due to the difference in gravity on the other bodies. I know we use scales to measure mass. But technically those scales will only be accurate as long as gravitational force remains at the constant value it is on the surface of the earth. And that value isn't constant. Just in one location, the value of the local gravity will vary slightly throughout the day. So to measure mass accurately. A balance should be used. But you are correct in noticing that without the presence of the weight state, we can't use a balance to determine its mass. The atoms don't disappear in the weightless state, so if mass is a quantity of atoms, then it can't ever be zero. So the F=MA equation is not valid for gravitational weight. Due to the observation that mass would have to be zero in a gravitational free fall in vacuum. It may be that gravity has nothing to do with mass.
You have brought up another interesting point. In chemistry, mass appears to refer to a quantity of atoms. And I was taught to use a balance rather than a scale to measure mass. On the balance, mass is always a ratio of a standard calibrated quantity of mass to an unknown amount of mass. So you could use a balance on another planet or the moon and still come out with the correct amount of mass. But a scale would show a different amount of weight due to the difference in gravity on the other bodies. I know we use scales to measure mass. But technically those scales will only be accurate as long as gravitational force remains at the constant value it is on the surface of the earth. And that value isn't constant. Just in one location, the value of the local gravity will vary slightly throughout the day. So to measure mass accurately. A balance should be used. But you are correct in noticing that without the presence of the weight state, we can't use a balance to determine its mass. The atoms don't disappear in the weightless state, so if mass is a quantity of atoms, then it can't ever be zero. So the F=MA equation is not valid for gravitational weight. Due to the observation that mass would have to be zero in a gravitational free fall in vacuum. It may be that gravity has nothing to do with mass.
I've had more time to think about this and I don't know for sure but would a balance scale still react the same regardless of gravity but not necessarily weightlessness. If I place a 10 gram weight, calibrated here on Earth, on one side of the scale and then placed an amount of something needed to balance the scale evenly on the other side it should be 10 grams, on the Earth or Mars or the Moon, right? But in the weightlessness of space I still don't know what to think.
Darby
Epochal Historian
OK - Galileo, Newton, et al were all incorrect but you are correct. Yep, my statements were all silly assumptions - four years of college down the drain. I should have tinkered with magnets in my garage and become a super genious.
Now can we put this nonsense to bed? It's become boring.
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
Gpa
A balance will work anywhere in the universe where there is gravity. Since with a balance you aren't measuring force, just a ratio of a known quantity to another unknown quantity. Out in a weightless environment you would have to create a weight environment for the balance to work. A rotating space station would probably work. If far enough away from the center of rotation, the balance will work just as it would with gravity. That would be an interesting math exercise just to see how far from the center of rotation you would have to be, so as not to negatively influence the experimental accuracy of the balance.
A balance will work anywhere in the universe where there is gravity. Since with a balance you aren't measuring force, just a ratio of a known quantity to another unknown quantity. Out in a weightless environment you would have to create a weight environment for the balance to work. A rotating space station would probably work. If far enough away from the center of rotation, the balance will work just as it would with gravity. That would be an interesting math exercise just to see how far from the center of rotation you would have to be, so as not to negatively influence the experimental accuracy of the balance.
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
Hi Darby
I do detect just a bit of sarcasm in your reply. It is hard for me to find anyone willing to talk about our reality and the inconsistencies in our theories about that reality. They're all chickens. I will admit mother natures classroom is a bit boring. Just facts. But the facts are real. And some of them do appear to be puzzling. You could make something up to explain away the puzzling part. But then the explanation becomes a theory. Which isn't a fact. If the theory was factual, then it is no longer a theory. And nobody seems to be turning the theories into facts. So that in itself says a lot about theories. They're all fiction. Yet somehow you're led to believe that the theories could be fact. Conned. So it really does make me wonder now if your reply was sarcastic, or ironic.
Humor aside, I was really just trying to point out that weight seems to be one of mother natures building blocks. Building blocks that share the weight characteristic, but also have some other attribute that makes them distinctly different. Almost like we were looking at different states of weight. I recall saying quite a while back that it looks like mother nature has found a way to make an orange equal an apple. It looks to me like that apple is weight, with different flavors.
I do detect just a bit of sarcasm in your reply. It is hard for me to find anyone willing to talk about our reality and the inconsistencies in our theories about that reality. They're all chickens. I will admit mother natures classroom is a bit boring. Just facts. But the facts are real. And some of them do appear to be puzzling. You could make something up to explain away the puzzling part. But then the explanation becomes a theory. Which isn't a fact. If the theory was factual, then it is no longer a theory. And nobody seems to be turning the theories into facts. So that in itself says a lot about theories. They're all fiction. Yet somehow you're led to believe that the theories could be fact. Conned. So it really does make me wonder now if your reply was sarcastic, or ironic.
Humor aside, I was really just trying to point out that weight seems to be one of mother natures building blocks. Building blocks that share the weight characteristic, but also have some other attribute that makes them distinctly different. Almost like we were looking at different states of weight. I recall saying quite a while back that it looks like mother nature has found a way to make an orange equal an apple. It looks to me like that apple is weight, with different flavors.
Darby
Epochal Historian
Weight is not "one of mother nature's building blocks". It is mass under acceleration measured in Newtons, not grams or kilograms. Mass is measured in grams. Weight is measured in gram * cm * sec^-2...Newtons. The "cm*sec^-2" is the "a" in F=ma or F=mg when considering gravitational acceleration.
Of course, this discussion will go no where. It's useless to suggest that you place the situation in the correct relativistic frames (Newtonian relativity - we're talking about weak field, low velocity situations here and don't need to get into special or general relativity) and consider the principle of equivalence. As usual, I fully expect you take a contrarian position for the sake of contrarianism. That's why the discussion is becoming a bore. Been there, done that for ten+ years.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Einstein,
That is one of the few things you got correct in this post. I am not going to try to go thru the detailed teaching of where you are mistaken. I already did that once with the gyroscopic torque issue. And in that go-round you simply insisted that your simplistic view was correct, and would not even bother to do the work to understand why the vector cross product fully explains why the physical reality of gyroscopic torque is explained by it. So until you engage with the learning process and actually ask for the details, they will not be offered freely.
On the issue of observation, your issue is you simply wish to observe with your eyes, and you actively avoid quantifying your observations by taking data. Your little experiments with magnets are a perfect example. Every time I pointed out that you needed to instrument your tests, because your mere visual observations are only qualitative, not quantitative, and thus are leading you to incorrect assumptions, you ignored this. But then again, you ignore a lot.
Here is a good example of where qualitative, and especially fleeting, observations can lead you to an improper conclusion. For the faint of heart: CAUTION, this video shows a human getting shot.
On the first viewing, most people who are not trained to observe as police officers are trained would claim they OBSERVED the police shooting the man after he had complied with the order to drop the gun. A more trained observer might notice that as he put the assault rifle down, his right hand was reaching behind him. An untrained witness on a witness stand may claim it is a "fact" that the officers shot a man who disarmed himself as they ordered. Such a claim does not reflect the actual reality, as you can see the other gun he reached for in his hand after he was down. This is just one example of how going on qualitative observations can fail you.
Incorrect. Some of us go beyond absorbing teaching and take it further to what is called understanding why the teaching is correct. That takes more work than simply listening to a teacher.
And yet you do not even realize that you exhibit this very problems yourself. That is irony.
Perhaps you can tell us exactly where you observed this? In fact, it is a fact that you did not observe this, unless you are one of the few people who have been in outer space, and additionally executed a space walk. Granted, what you state here is, in fact, correct. But I am pointing out that you are in error to state it was observed, least of all by you.
While this is correct, it is incomplete, and therefore insufficient. Just because said object may not have a visible acceleration, I can assure you that it does have an acceleration vector.
Incorrect. Rather, you could not be INconvenienced to understand what was being taught to you. In college we are taught to draw free body diagrams to avoid making the kinds of assumptions you have made that lead you to an incorrect conclusion. I can explain what you are missing, but first you will have to actually climb down from your high horse and request to be educated, rather than assuming you are right and all past scientists and verifying tests were wrong.
Because they can lead to incorrect assumptions, which in turn lead to incorrect conclusions. The entire purpose of a theory is to quantify it (and attempt to falsify or confirm it) via test. Test is defined as collecting data which quantifies an event.
Your first sentence is the area where you are missing the boat. Your second sentence is incomplete, and therefore for the purposes of what you are trying to understand, incorrect.
Incorrect, again because it is incomplete. Even in the free fall prior to impacting the ground, energy is being released.
Incorrect. Mass is never a vector. It is always a scalar. Mass has no direction, only a magnitude. A vector has both direction and magnitude.
Incorrect, and you have done nothing to even substantiate why you believe this to be true.
Correct, for a change. I point this out because this fact, coupled with the other area where I told you that you were missing the boat, can be brought together to help you understand where weight really comes from. The clue is "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." This should explain where weight comes from.
But they are not verifiable through quantitative experimental measurements. I know why I do not agree, and it is because I understand where your observations are in contrast with the mathematics that explain weight.
Sure. If you want to invoke incorrect assumptions that lead to incorrect conclusions, you keep going with those observations.
Of course, just as you apparently don't see a need for quantifiable measurements. They just get in the way of your presumed brilliance. (cough)
And what you do not seem to realize is that all of your observations lead you to assumptions that you appear to not be able to identify as such. Incorrect assumptions, at that.
And once again, you are missing something very important in your observations that explains the difference.
Incorrect. There is an implicit assumption which you just have not identified. But that is how implicit assumptions usually go to the people who do not even know they are making them!
There is a very simple explanation that resolves your quandary. Oddly enough, with all your grand standing about how all you need are observations, the thing you are missing is also eminently observable. But your lack of training and/or lack of application of proper kinematic analysis methods has left you thinking you have discovered an error in the giants whose shoulders you refuse to stand upon.
RMT
That is one of the few things you got correct in this post. I am not going to try to go thru the detailed teaching of where you are mistaken. I already did that once with the gyroscopic torque issue. And in that go-round you simply insisted that your simplistic view was correct, and would not even bother to do the work to understand why the vector cross product fully explains why the physical reality of gyroscopic torque is explained by it. So until you engage with the learning process and actually ask for the details, they will not be offered freely.
On the issue of observation, your issue is you simply wish to observe with your eyes, and you actively avoid quantifying your observations by taking data. Your little experiments with magnets are a perfect example. Every time I pointed out that you needed to instrument your tests, because your mere visual observations are only qualitative, not quantitative, and thus are leading you to incorrect assumptions, you ignored this. But then again, you ignore a lot.
Here is a good example of where qualitative, and especially fleeting, observations can lead you to an improper conclusion. For the faint of heart: CAUTION, this video shows a human getting shot.
On the first viewing, most people who are not trained to observe as police officers are trained would claim they OBSERVED the police shooting the man after he had complied with the order to drop the gun. A more trained observer might notice that as he put the assault rifle down, his right hand was reaching behind him. An untrained witness on a witness stand may claim it is a "fact" that the officers shot a man who disarmed himself as they ordered. Such a claim does not reflect the actual reality, as you can see the other gun he reached for in his hand after he was down. This is just one example of how going on qualitative observations can fail you.
Einstein said:
Incorrect. Some of us go beyond absorbing teaching and take it further to what is called understanding why the teaching is correct. That takes more work than simply listening to a teacher.
Einstein said:
And yet you do not even realize that you exhibit this very problems yourself. That is irony.
Einstein said:
Perhaps you can tell us exactly where you observed this? In fact, it is a fact that you did not observe this, unless you are one of the few people who have been in outer space, and additionally executed a space walk. Granted, what you state here is, in fact, correct. But I am pointing out that you are in error to state it was observed, least of all by you.
Einstein said:
While this is correct, it is incomplete, and therefore insufficient. Just because said object may not have a visible acceleration, I can assure you that it does have an acceleration vector.
Einstein said:
Incorrect. Rather, you could not be INconvenienced to understand what was being taught to you. In college we are taught to draw free body diagrams to avoid making the kinds of assumptions you have made that lead you to an incorrect conclusion. I can explain what you are missing, but first you will have to actually climb down from your high horse and request to be educated, rather than assuming you are right and all past scientists and verifying tests were wrong.
Einstein said:
Because they can lead to incorrect assumptions, which in turn lead to incorrect conclusions. The entire purpose of a theory is to quantify it (and attempt to falsify or confirm it) via test. Test is defined as collecting data which quantifies an event.
Einstein said:
Your first sentence is the area where you are missing the boat. Your second sentence is incomplete, and therefore for the purposes of what you are trying to understand, incorrect.
Einstein said:
Incorrect, again because it is incomplete. Even in the free fall prior to impacting the ground, energy is being released.
Einstein said:
Incorrect. Mass is never a vector. It is always a scalar. Mass has no direction, only a magnitude. A vector has both direction and magnitude.
Einstein said:
Incorrect, and you have done nothing to even substantiate why you believe this to be true.
Einstein said:
Correct, for a change. I point this out because this fact, coupled with the other area where I told you that you were missing the boat, can be brought together to help you understand where weight really comes from. The clue is "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." This should explain where weight comes from.
Einstein said:
But they are not verifiable through quantitative experimental measurements. I know why I do not agree, and it is because I understand where your observations are in contrast with the mathematics that explain weight.
Einstein said:
Sure. If you want to invoke incorrect assumptions that lead to incorrect conclusions, you keep going with those observations.
Einstein said:
Of course, just as you apparently don't see a need for quantifiable measurements. They just get in the way of your presumed brilliance. (cough)
Einstein said:
And what you do not seem to realize is that all of your observations lead you to assumptions that you appear to not be able to identify as such. Incorrect assumptions, at that.
Einstein said:
And once again, you are missing something very important in your observations that explains the difference.
Einstein said:
Incorrect. There is an implicit assumption which you just have not identified. But that is how implicit assumptions usually go to the people who do not even know they are making them!
There is a very simple explanation that resolves your quandary. Oddly enough, with all your grand standing about how all you need are observations, the thing you are missing is also eminently observable. But your lack of training and/or lack of application of proper kinematic analysis methods has left you thinking you have discovered an error in the giants whose shoulders you refuse to stand upon.
RMT
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
Rainman
You do seem to have some insecurity and inferiority issues. Your incessant rant about my inferior education is very telling. You don't really believe it's inferior, but you would like everybody else to believe it is. That is an inferiority complex if I ever saw one. I think you're afraid of what I might come up with next. Possibly because you can't match my inquisitive nature. And then there is this repeating pattern that you display. Almost as if you are goading me into retaliating. So then I take the bait and put you in your place. But you keep coming back for more. Now that is a masochistic tendency. You seem to like the internet beating I usually wind up giving you. So you're using me. So if I don't give you the punishment you crave, then maybe you'll turn back into that civilized man that I first met when I came here. He seemed to be a very helpful and intelligent person. I actually liked that guy. So here goes. Request denied for punishment.
Now onto the issues at hand. I'm going to make a time machine. I already know I'll succeed. But I needed a basic understanding of how to do it. I have theories on how to do it. I tested out my rotating gravity theory 5 years ago. It didn't work. But I did accidentally access a time wave phenomena that I have yet to reproduce. So something was eluding me, and at the time I didn't know what it was. But analysis did tend to suggest there might be something basic that I was overlooking. So back to basics. Last year I assembled some basic observations about gravity and inertial force. I was very careful to just describe the observations as facts. There really is no disputing of facts. It was hard at first to do that. I have been schooled and trained to use theories to solve problems. I had to put that knowledge aside and start searching through basic observations in the hopes that just maybe I might find something amiss. Weight seems to be a recurring theme in the basic observations. Not mass, or at least not mass as the way we understand it today. Lets just look at Newton's F=MA equation. You did agree that I had the observation of an inertial acceleration correct. In applying an inertial force, a resulting acceleration vector and an opposing weight vector is produced. Let us express that with some math. When I write the math down, I get F=WA, where the W represents weight. So that mathematical formula represents a force. So did Newton have it wrong? Or the more probable answer is our meaning or understanding of what Newton tried to convey with his equation has changed. At the time of Newton, mass and weight may not have had a distinction as it does now. That was one possibility. But I thought about this, and another theory comes to mind. What if there was a deliberate effort by a group of scientists to deliberately alter the meaning of weight. To get the concept of weight out of the text books and replace it with mass instead. Why? Maybe because the truth would allow mankind to remove himself from the surface of this planet. I can tell you that I'm not going to remove mankind from the surface of the planet. My original search was just to find out how to make a ufo propulsion engine. Seems pretty easy to do now. But the lure of a time machine is also present with this altered understanding. I keep procrastinating about that. It's up to you on whether you choose to believe or not. And it probably would be for the better if you not tell others about the force equation. It's probably classified. You know, sometime soon I expect to wake up with the winning lottery numbers that I had from a dream of mine. Sounds like a plausible story. A dream come true.
You do seem to have some insecurity and inferiority issues. Your incessant rant about my inferior education is very telling. You don't really believe it's inferior, but you would like everybody else to believe it is. That is an inferiority complex if I ever saw one. I think you're afraid of what I might come up with next. Possibly because you can't match my inquisitive nature. And then there is this repeating pattern that you display. Almost as if you are goading me into retaliating. So then I take the bait and put you in your place. But you keep coming back for more. Now that is a masochistic tendency. You seem to like the internet beating I usually wind up giving you. So you're using me. So if I don't give you the punishment you crave, then maybe you'll turn back into that civilized man that I first met when I came here. He seemed to be a very helpful and intelligent person. I actually liked that guy. So here goes. Request denied for punishment.
Now onto the issues at hand. I'm going to make a time machine. I already know I'll succeed. But I needed a basic understanding of how to do it. I have theories on how to do it. I tested out my rotating gravity theory 5 years ago. It didn't work. But I did accidentally access a time wave phenomena that I have yet to reproduce. So something was eluding me, and at the time I didn't know what it was. But analysis did tend to suggest there might be something basic that I was overlooking. So back to basics. Last year I assembled some basic observations about gravity and inertial force. I was very careful to just describe the observations as facts. There really is no disputing of facts. It was hard at first to do that. I have been schooled and trained to use theories to solve problems. I had to put that knowledge aside and start searching through basic observations in the hopes that just maybe I might find something amiss. Weight seems to be a recurring theme in the basic observations. Not mass, or at least not mass as the way we understand it today. Lets just look at Newton's F=MA equation. You did agree that I had the observation of an inertial acceleration correct. In applying an inertial force, a resulting acceleration vector and an opposing weight vector is produced. Let us express that with some math. When I write the math down, I get F=WA, where the W represents weight. So that mathematical formula represents a force. So did Newton have it wrong? Or the more probable answer is our meaning or understanding of what Newton tried to convey with his equation has changed. At the time of Newton, mass and weight may not have had a distinction as it does now. That was one possibility. But I thought about this, and another theory comes to mind. What if there was a deliberate effort by a group of scientists to deliberately alter the meaning of weight. To get the concept of weight out of the text books and replace it with mass instead. Why? Maybe because the truth would allow mankind to remove himself from the surface of this planet. I can tell you that I'm not going to remove mankind from the surface of the planet. My original search was just to find out how to make a ufo propulsion engine. Seems pretty easy to do now. But the lure of a time machine is also present with this altered understanding. I keep procrastinating about that. It's up to you on whether you choose to believe or not. And it probably would be for the better if you not tell others about the force equation. It's probably classified. You know, sometime soon I expect to wake up with the winning lottery numbers that I had from a dream of mine. Sounds like a plausible story. A dream come true.
Darby
Epochal Historian
If I were Dr. Greg House I'd probably say at this time, "You're a moron." But I'm not House so I won't.
Do the damned expansion of the above tripe.
You previously stated that Force = Weight = ma
Now you insist that Force = wa (apparently force is suffering from schizophrenia)
So substitute the terms and integrate the two "equations"
F^2 = (ma)a * ma = m^2a^3 ...
in other words a bunch of nonsense because, as usual, you don't think problems through. You just toss the panties at the wall and see if they stick.
It's no damned wonder you "don't like theories". They get in the way of massive woo-woo.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Actually Einstein
In my last post I said nothing about your education, but rather discussed how education is supposed to work (and most often does). The fact that you read yourself into those comments would tend to support the psychological conclusion that you are the one with the insecurity issue. Perhaps Darby, a degreed professional in psychology, could chime in on that one? Moreover, the fact that you stated "about my inferior education" above might be considered a "Freudian slip". But alas, we see that since you cannot speak rationally to the issues of veridical science that you, yourself, raised, you must now make this "all about me". We call that "ad hominem". Sad to see you stoop that low, but I guess your ego demands it, eh?
In your dreams (that you speak of below), little guy. You are projecting again.
Perhaps you forget that I have willingly revealed my debating tactic on this forum many times before. It is called "mirroring". I give you what you give me. So perhaps a bit of introspection might be a good thing on your end. When you start to actually address the points of validated science that I bring up, and discuss them rationally, then you will also see my responses change in tone. But until you do that...you will get what you give.
Why am I not surprised you believe this?
If memory serves me correctly, not even 2 posts ago you were telling us why theories are unnecessary. Perhaps it is your memory that needs an overhaul?
Shocked, I am.
Unsubstantiated conclusion.
Yes, I did. But your "math" is still missing a very basic observation of where weight comes from. You, the self-professed king of observations have jumped the gun with the math and missed an observation that, if a proper FBD were drawn, you would see.
And that is technically incorrect, that mathematical/physical formulation. The units do not even work out. Freshman engineering basics, and you have failed.
No, Einstein has it wrong, and I am not talking about the Einstein who won the Nobel Prize in Physics.
Says the guy who claims theories are not necessary.
Ah, of course...the conspiracy theory angle. This is where I get off your unbalanced merry go round. Classic internet nutjob theme taking shape here.
You have other issues in your dream that need attention before you will make any progress in physics.
RMT
In my last post I said nothing about your education, but rather discussed how education is supposed to work (and most often does). The fact that you read yourself into those comments would tend to support the psychological conclusion that you are the one with the insecurity issue. Perhaps Darby, a degreed professional in psychology, could chime in on that one? Moreover, the fact that you stated "about my inferior education" above might be considered a "Freudian slip". But alas, we see that since you cannot speak rationally to the issues of veridical science that you, yourself, raised, you must now make this "all about me". We call that "ad hominem". Sad to see you stoop that low, but I guess your ego demands it, eh?
Einstein said:
In your dreams (that you speak of below), little guy. You are projecting again.
Einstein said:
Perhaps you forget that I have willingly revealed my debating tactic on this forum many times before. It is called "mirroring". I give you what you give me. So perhaps a bit of introspection might be a good thing on your end. When you start to actually address the points of validated science that I bring up, and discuss them rationally, then you will also see my responses change in tone. But until you do that...you will get what you give.
Einstein said:
Why am I not surprised you believe this?
Einstein said:
If memory serves me correctly, not even 2 posts ago you were telling us why theories are unnecessary. Perhaps it is your memory that needs an overhaul?
Einstein said:
Shocked, I am.
Einstein said:
Unsubstantiated conclusion.
Einstein said:
Yes, I did. But your "math" is still missing a very basic observation of where weight comes from. You, the self-professed king of observations have jumped the gun with the math and missed an observation that, if a proper FBD were drawn, you would see.
Einstein said:
And that is technically incorrect, that mathematical/physical formulation. The units do not even work out. Freshman engineering basics, and you have failed.
Einstein said:
No, Einstein has it wrong, and I am not talking about the Einstein who won the Nobel Prize in Physics.
Einstein said:
Says the guy who claims theories are not necessary.
Einstein said:
Ah, of course...the conspiracy theory angle. This is where I get off your unbalanced merry go round. Classic internet nutjob theme taking shape here.
Einstein said:
You have other issues in your dream that need attention before you will make any progress in physics.
RMT
I apologize for my mini-crack-attack. It was late. I read Einstein's posts and I was reacting to his premise that weight (or in my mind the ability to weigh something) was non-existent. I freely admit I have been too long out of the scientific work place. For 15 years now and knowledge is like a muscle, if you don't use it, you lose it. I did some in depth study. My sanity is returned, for now. I am still interested if anyone knows of a device that is used, perhaps by NASA, to measure solids in weightlessness. I searched but found nothing that really answered it. Gas and liquids are no problem. They can be measured by volume. Solids need to be weighed or pre-packaged. Aside from the weightless problem this started me thinking how different a periodic table might be on another planet with a different gravity than Earth. We could easily compare atoms and molecules by their chemical bonds and Lewis structures but the atomic weights would be different. Avogadro's number would be the same but their weight would be different "but equivalent". If we ever do meet an ET I would be very interested to see their periodic table. Guess I'm a bit off topic. Sorry, back in my cage.
Darby
Epochal Historian
Based on your math skills, you couldn't find a pot to stir if you were sitting in it. But it was a nice try at deflection. Now about that cubed acceleration...
any explanation?
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
Cubed acceleration: an acceleration that is changing at a changing rate. Hypothetically a rocket ship in space could be used as an example. Since the weight of the fuel comes into play. The weight of the rocket ship steadily decreases during propulsion. Under steady throttle the acceleration of the rocket changes at a constant rate. Now if you were to gradually increase the throttle at a constant rate then your rate of acceleration will change at a changing rate. This hypothetical scenario should take place in space to avoid any drag created by an atmosphere.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Incorrect. And now you display your lack of knowledge of how to correctly apply calculus (the derivative, to be precise), much less mind your units.
Keep going, this is entertaining. Not only to myself, but to my students who I have instructed to tune-in.
RMT
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Too chicken (to use your own words) to even point out where you believe I am wrong. Par for the Einstein course.
RMT
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
Not chicken at all. You didn't really elaborate on why you thought my written representation of a cubed acceleration in the real world was incorrect. A smart move on your part. Of course both you and Darby did display an inability to comprehend a direct mathematical comparison of Newton's F=MA to a real world observation. So I guess it's not too surprising to find out that you aren't familiar with a real world example of an acceleration cubed. You didn't even recognize the verbiage I used. You're an engineer. Aren't you supposed to know how to do that? LOL, My calculus instructor made sure all of us understood how to apply what we were being taught. We were all scared of her. None of us would dare misbehave as you are doing now. Tell me, can you even put into words using calculus verbiage to describe cubed acceleration? Good luck if you're using Google to find the answer. I'm eagerly awaiting your reply.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Another dead wrong assumption that you choose to state as if it is a fact. And do you really wonder why I treat you like I do?
Einstein said:
I know exactly what you were trying to describe, at least I understand the words you used. And it is incorrect on at least two counts. So using your own words:
First, cubing an acceleration is a simple algebraic operation, not a calculus operation. So what is on the left side of the colon does not match what is on the right. The units of a cubed acceleration would be Length^3/Time^6. I will show you how this does not match with the units for the words on the right hand side of the colon after I point out your second error.
Second, the words on the right hand side of the colon describe the second DERIVATIVE of an acceleration. The first rate of change of acceleration (AKA the "jerk", how appropriate for you to bring up) would be:
da/dt
But you said it was changing at a changing rate. That implies another derivative, hence your words represent:
d^2 (a)/dt^2
Now to point out your error in assuming that the second derivative ends up with an acceleration "cubed". The action of taking a derivative REDUCES the order of a polynomial (i.e. the exponents get smaller). So taking the second derivative of a polynomial that describes acceleration WILL NOT "cube" that acceleration. In fact, it will lower its order. If you wish to raise the order of a polynomial, what you want is the integral, but the integral does not describe a changing rate of change. So again, you show your confusion and ignorance. I should have told one of my students reading along to correct you. That would have been fun, as he does not suffer fools either.
Finally, let's look at how the units of what you describe as "an acceleration that is changing at a changing rate." Contrary to what you stated, these units will not simply be acceleration cubed. Just like when you take the 1st derivative of position (L), you get the units of velocity (L/T), if you are going to take the second derivative of acceleration (which is clearly what your words describe), you will end up with units of acceleration with two additional factors of time in the denominator. As such the final units turn out to be Length/Time^4.
So now let's review:
Units for the left side of the colon in your sentence = Length^3/Time^6
Units for the right side of the colon in your sentence = Length/Time^4
The units do not match. Engineering 101 FAIL. Now, at this point you can pretend that (because you think you know better) the words you use did not mean what I just explained. But the words you used are exactly as I explained them. If you meant something different, then you would have made three, not two, errors.
So what now, Einstein? Time for another ad hominem on Rainman to divert away from your incorrectness again?
RMT