Yer another time traveling claim

Re: Yet another time traveling claim

>Remember our example of "this car is going at a speed of 400 pounds"? In english, this may be an acceptable statement, because english allows for metaphores.<

Thanks for this admission too.

>But as a math statement it is unteneable, because speed simply isn't measured in pounds.<

Good thing I wrote:

>>I could explain to you a dozen different ways how a car could be going at 400 pounds... I think the job of physicists is to put things like this into formulas.<<

What is your branch of physics, Sigo?
 
Re: Yet another time traveling claim

I could explain to you a dozen different ways how a car could be going at 400 pounds... I think the job of physicists is to put things like this into formulas.
Click to expand...


Do you remember the context in which these statements were made?

I was equating Titorian's "C=ME2" to the statement "this car is going at a speed of 400 pounds". Titorian already gave us an exact, concise formula. You can think of Titorian's formula as telling you "I say that this car is going at a speed of 400 pounds, and I mean it literally". And that is, of-course, absurd.
 
Re: Yet another time traveling claim

>I was equating Titorian's "C=ME2" to the statement "this car is going at a speed of 400 pounds". Titorian already gave us an exact, concise formula. You can think of Titorian's formula as telling you "I say that this car is going at a speed of 400 pounds, and I mean it literally". And that is, of-course, absurd.<

A car CAN travel at 400 pounds. If we put the same car in space, it won't go anywhere. Why?

What is your branch of physics, Sigo?
 
Re: Yet another time traveling claim

A car CAN travel at 400 pounds. If we put the same car in space, it won't go anywhere.
Click to expand...

Huh??? Please rephrase and explain, because I didn't understand a thing.



What is your branch of physics, Sigo?
Click to expand...

I suppose you can call it "thorough general knowledge".

If you worked out who I really am, you already know that I cannot have any official credentials which will mean anything to you. But I'm sure that the physics and engineering guys here will be happy to check me out, if you ask them /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: Yet another time traveling claim

>Huh??? Please rephrase and explain, because I didn't understand a thing.<

An electric car weighs 2000 pounds. On the moon, where gravity is one-sixth, the same car weighs 333 pounds. So the same car on Earth going 10 mph would go 60 mph on the moon. Why? Because it weighs less but the horsepower/torque is the same.

In other words, a car can travel at "400 pounds".

>What is your branch of physics, Sigo?<

>>I suppose you can call it "thorough general knowledge".<<

That's one way of looking at it.

Another way is to say you ain't a phycisist.

Which means statements like these:

>The problem is, math is fundamentally different than english. It isn't just a foreign language such as french or chinese, but a completely different framework of thought. This is where our misunderstanding with Jmpet is coming from.<

are coming from someone no more qualified to make summarialistic or scientifically valid statements than myself.

>If you worked out who I really am, you already know that I cannot have any official credentials which will mean anything to you. But I'm sure that the physics and engineering guys here will be happy to check me out, if you ask them<

If I had to guess (for as little as I actually care), you're someone pretending to be a time traveller but hasn't said it yet.
 
Re: Yet another time traveling claim

An electric car weighs 2000 pounds. On the moon, where gravity is one-sixth, the same car weighs 333 pounds. So the same car on Earth going 10 mph would go 60 mph on the moon. Why? Because it weighs less but the horsepower/torque is the same.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, Jmpet, you really don't have a clue, do you?

The resistance of an object to acceleration is determined by its MASS, not its WEIGHT. And a 2000 pound car still has a mass of 2000 pound, even on the moon.

Not to mention the simple fact that an ordinary car won't work on the moon at all. Lower gravity means lower friction, so the wheels won't turn. That's why lunar vehicles have such big and bulky wheels.

Of-course, since I am not... er... "qualified" to give you this answer, I'm sure you'll choose to remain in your ignorance. Keep this attitude, boy, and you'll never learn anything.
 
Re: Yet another time traveling claim

Guess who's back?

Actually, when my student informed me of what was going on, and specifically who was spouting errant knowledge, I resisted his calls to come back and post. However, I just returned home and there was an EMAIL from my student telling me to check out the latest in this thread, and he prompted me again to set erroneous statements straight, if not for the person making these statements at least for the others who might be reading (and might be mislead). Again, I resisted, but when I read the following, the teacher in me knew I had to set the technical record straight:
An electric car weighs 2000 pounds. On the moon, where gravity is one-sixth, the same car weighs 333 pounds. So the same car on Earth going 10 mph would go 60 mph on the moon. Why? Because it weighs less but the horsepower/torque is the same.
Click to expand...
This is not only incorrect, but terribly naive. I am going to try to be simple and not nasty here, jmpet. But if you do not wish to admit your errors, that is not a reflection of me. Your errors are typical of a freshman engineering student who resists the first rule of mechanics which is "draw a free body diagram". The second rule of mechanics is to "label the forces acting on the body in the free body diagram". First, you have completely ignored that there are aerodynamic forces that resist a vehicle's motion. Those aerodynamic forces become dominant as a vehicle goes faster because these forces scale with the square of the velocity. Therefore, simply assuming the resistive force only scales with weight is what is naive. Since there is no atmosphere on the moon, the vehicle will actually travel faster than 6 times its speed on earth because there will be NO aerodynamic force on the moon, where the primary resistive force at crusing speed on the earth IS the aerodynamic force of drag. However, there are still several problems with the reasoning above which relates to the difference between static friction and rolling friction. While the rolling friction (once the vehicle gets moving) will indeed scale proportionally to the normal force of the vehicle upon the surface of the moon (and so in this case the 6x might be valid), this also assumes that the coefficient of rolling friction is identical between the earth and the moon. This, in itself, could be a large error. But there is a bigger problem that Sigo2507 referred to, and this relates to the vehicle's ability to overcome static friction & inertia and begin moving. This, indeed, is a function not solely of the normal force exerted by the vehicle on the ground, but the mass of the vehicle. Because the mass is the same on earth and the moon, the force required to overcome the inertia of this mass will be the same.
In other words, a car can travel at "400 pounds".
Click to expand...
That might seem neato and cool, and it might even be passable in some sort of SciFi storyline jmpet, but it is technically incorrect. It is gibberish in the language of physics and mathematics. The fact that you wish to make it mean something does not mean it actually reflects a measureable physical situation.
Sigo2507: Keep this attitude, boy, and you'll never learn anything.
Click to expand...
I agree. But then again, I took some time to try to explain the physics of aerodynamics that determine the power output of a windmill, and he ignored those facts as well. You are an intelligent person, jmpet, and you could learn to apply the facts of science. But I am afraid one of the first things someone like you must learn is to check your ego at the door, as it will hinder you from learning and understanding the details of how things really work... as opposed to how you would like to think they work.

And I have a strong feeling I know exactly who you are, Sigo2507. Nice to "chat" with you again. Please do keep up the good work. As for BulletTheBlueSky: Keep doing your homework, work your rocket simulation project, and I think you will do quite well on the final for ARO 103. You have the talent, so all you need to do is keep the fire of passion burning to motivate you through your senior year.

Back to the shadows for me...
RMT
 
Re: Yet another time traveling claim

Rainman, welcome back.

And thanks for making the points about mass, inertia and weight.

It's an easy mistake to make (though in the wrong circumstance it could be a fatal mistake) to directly translate the meaning of weight as being the same as mass.

The inertia of a given mass is precisely the same no matter what gravitational field is present. The same applied force is required to change the velocity of the vehicle on the Earth and on the Moon if we assume that the vehicle is placed on a like solid surface on both bodies and are able ignore any atmospheric friction on the Earth (we place it in a vacuum if we have to /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif). I suppose that for precision we should also assume that both situations share a common rest frame. The relative motion of the Moon-Earth system is a functional rest frame for purposes of this scenario.
 
Re: Yet another time traveling claim

I agree. But then again, I took some time to try to explain the physics of aerodynamics that determine the power output of a windmill, and he ignored those facts as well.
Click to expand...

You will have to forgive me, Rainman. Aerodyanmics is not my forte. If it's okay with you, I'll leave the explanations of the engineering stuff to you. Unlike Jmpet, I like to keep my mouth shut on topics I don't understand.
 
Re: Yet another time traveling claim

Rainman's back, which means this thread just turned to sh*t
Click to expand...

Actually, since the guy is a certified engineer and a certified instructor, I would have hoped that you would consider him "qualified" to set you straight.

Oh well... You can't have everything in life:)
 
Re: Yet another time traveling claim

That might seem neato and cool, and it might even be passable in some sort of SciFi storyline jmpet, but it is technically incorrect. It is gibberish in the language of physics and mathematics. The fact that you wish to make it mean something does not mean it actually reflects a measureable physical situation
Click to expand...

Thank you, Rainman.

Finally, the absurdity of "a car travelling at 400 pounds" is openly explained by a person who is qualified to do so. :D

Just imagine what would happen without people like Rainman. We would have cars travelling at 400 pounds, weighing 100 mph and having a bright flutzpah color. And we, the poor ordinary folks, will not be able to do anything about this madness, because we aren't qualified to do so. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif

Once again, Rainman saves the world from utter chaos. :D
 
Re: Yet another time traveling claim

I wonder if there is physics geek support group for people?

"Hello... My name is Raymond and I care about physics too much" "Hello Raymond" /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Why people are argue with those doing creative writing still amazes me /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

TheCigMan
 
Re: Yet another time traveling claim

I wonder if there is physics geek support group for people?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is called "the real world".

And there is a special section in TTI dedicated for fictional creative writing. It is called "Fan Fiction". On the TT claims section, we expect the claimers to actually make sense.
 
Re: Yet another time traveling claim

Will Arnald Schwarzenegger ever become president? Will Titanic's domestic original year release gross, ever be beaten?
 
Re: Yet another time traveling claim

>I just returned home and there was an EMAIL from my student telling me to check out the latest in this thread<

So you're the teacher and the other person is the student, right? That means the information should by definition be flowing in one direction, right?

(And BTW- I just checked, and they're still selling diplomas from your "university" online. And while I'd normally pay the $295 just to post "my diploma" here and end this "controversy", but in all practicality, a Cal Tech Pomona degree is worth slightly more than the paper it's printed on and since you're not worth the $294.99 it will take to make you go away for good (were such things possible)- especially when logic and truth achieve the same purpose to a greater degree and at a less expense and at a greater reward.)

>An electric car weighs 2000 pounds. On the moon, where gravity is one-sixth, the same car weighs 333 pounds. So the same car on Earth going 10 mph would go 60 mph on the moon. Why? Because it weighs less but the horsepower/torque is the same.<

Or in Rainman talk, it's:

>the rolling friction will indeed scale proportionally to the normal force of the vehicle upon the surface of the moon (and so in this case the 6x might be valid)<

Or in fancy schmancy Darby physics talk it's:

>The relative motion of the Moon-Earth system is a functional rest frame for purposes of this scenario.<

Or in Titorian-talk, it's:

>C=ME2<

Or in layman talk, we all agree and we're only arguing over whose dik is bigger, right?

Which is why I am here hashing out what he said instead of feeding into clambake scenarios: because there ain't nothing to talk about on this site apart from Titorian-inspired ideas or the latest half-baked time traveller claim, right?

Which means to you Sigo:

Hmmm... seems I have a valid point to make after all.

Which kinda makes you wonder about:

>Unlike Jmpet, I like to keep my mouth shut on topics I don't understand.< -Sigo2507

Especially when you consider:

>I cannot (as in, 'don't') have any official credentials< -Sigo 2507

So let's see... you don't have any official credentials, as in- you don't know what the hell you're talking about, yet here you are spouting your bulltheories.

Hmmm... let's move on with it, shall we?

Dear Rainman;

How are you? How ya doin? Are you going to be true to your word to not be here or is this yet another or your ill-defined and unintended paradoxes, like when you pray to God do learn whether your "scientific theory of the universe" is true or not, or shall I wait another 349 days for your bullopinions (note: OPINIONS) to prove out to be false yet again?

Oh wait-

>The relative motion of the Moon-Earth system is a functional rest frame for purposes of this scenario.<

D'oh!

You still working on "Massive Space Time"? Didn't you set up your own forum? Whatsamatter? The .17 hits-per-day it gets just isn't enough to satisfy your personal ego? Oh wait- did you just now realize that when you went away, the silent majority wouldn't follow you? Because if so, I pity you for the vast spance between "your ego" and "reality".

And while we're at it, how's New Zealand?

So where was I? Oh yeah-

>I could explain to you a dozen different ways how a car could be going at 400 pounds... I think the job of physicists is to put things like this into formulas.<

Oh yeah- it is the job of physicists to put into mathematical formulas new concepts. Why? Because they are classically trained and ultimately objective- and that is why you fail. (And for the record, this is why I will never argue with Darby.)

So here are some words to bake your noodle: every advance in phyiscs is one step closer to metaphysics. PLEASE disagree with this.

Or in other words:

>"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." -Arthur C Clarke<
Jmpet 5/7/07

You know what else is really funny? I wrote:

>He can then open a theme park in the year 2507 called "2007 Land" that's full of people he time travelled from 2007. He'll be a hero and everyone will love him and it only costs him five bucks.< on 4/27/07.

And wham bam- the very next day "Sigo2507" registers with this forum and starts posting here- and his first post is amagingly in reply to my "2507" reference:

>Forget that specific trust fund. What are the chances that a concept even remotely resembling money will survive into the 26th?<

Oooh- lemmie guess... you're from the future, right? And proof of this is your callous dismissal of any topic on this forum, right? "Because you done know better than 'present-time folk' ", right? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

You and Rainman can both go away now. Here's a place to go:

http://www.tree-o-life.org/forum/

After all- they get .17 hits a day!!! They can use the exposure /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: Yet another time traveling claim

>Will Arnald Schwarzenegger ever become president? Will Titanic's domestic original year release gross, ever be beaten?<

Well, considering gold was $300 an ounce FIVE YEARS AGO and today it's double that, and considering gas was $1.50 a gallon five years ago and today it's double that- all while GOLD and OIL remain worth the same on the international market within the past five years, I'd conclude Titanic's chances of staying in the history books as a record opening in box-office dollars are slim to zero.
 
Re: Yet another time traveling claim

Jmpet, I sure wish you stopped taking everything so personally. It isn't a discussion about you or me or Rainman. This isn't an ego war. And your continoual bashing of other posters is getting us absolutely nowhere.

I do, however, wish to reply to one thing you've said:

Oooh- lemmie guess... you're from the future, right? And proof of this is your callous dismissal of any topic on this forum, right? "Because you done know better than 'present-time folk' ", right?
Click to expand...

Those are YOUR words, my friend. Not mine. And you do seem to have a few misconceptions here.

First, I've never claimed to be from the future.

Second, being a time traveller is no excuse to being arrogant and rude. Time travellers are still falliable human beings, and are expected to follow the same civil manners as everybody else.

Third, the only person here who is arrogantly dismissing everybody, is you. You've went as far as accusing Rainman of buying a fake diploma, which is - in my book - way over the line.
 
Back
Top