Go stand in the corner, Chris

This is the place for any magazine-related discussions that don't fit in any of the column discussion boards below.
josmith
Posts: 340
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:01 am
Contact:

Re: Go stand in the corner, Chris

Post by josmith » Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:59 pm

Since when did kenetic energy have anything to do with gravity? Sounds like sombody is just guessing!

User avatar
Chris Smith
Posts: 4325
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Bieber Ca.

Re: Go stand in the corner, Chris

Post by Chris Smith » Mon Sep 26, 2005 3:03 pm

usteservice <p>I have heard that joke before but we all know the shrub is brain dead. Only a moron would lie, attack a country, and then rely on lies to cover up his screw ups for years at a time. <p>Coke and Tequila kills off brain cells rapidly, and then there is the ADD problem, and also the fact that he is a puppet for the real power in the US called big business. You remember that famous line, “This is my base” while talking to all the ass kissers of wall street. <p>Ray Gun was brain dead long before he left California for the white house so the republican party realized, they don’t some one with a working brain, just a good stupid Dain Brammaged puppet like the shrub. <p>MBA my ass, he failed at every attempt in business bar none. Look at the deficit of this business called the US, he even managed to screw that up. If you don’t know the difference between the puppets and those with a brain, your blinders are cutting off your circulation. <p>"You're back here with my people. You're back here with the tequila drinkers, yeah. What you need is to go up there and make a little whoopee with the tequila drinkers, get to know them better." - G.W. Bush Nov. 5, 2002<p>
All of our armed forces have become puppets to the will and stupidity of the top brass. The National Guard is supposed to protect the US, only, yet a moron has them all off on his wild goose chase for oil, and the Coast Guard spent way too many years in NAM, watching their coastal waters. Again, the morons at the top can do this because you guys never learned Nancy Raygun’s one good line, Just say no. It comes from a conscience and awareness that stupid people at the top don’t give a damn about you. It’s the buck they care about or haven’t you learned by now they screw you guys at the drop of a hat, and you come back for more every time. <p>Article I, Section 8; Clause 15
Clause 15 provides that the Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling up the militia -- "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions." All three standards appear to be applicable only to the Territory of the United States.<p>Joe<p>"Since when did kenetic energy have anything to do with gravity? Sounds like sombody is just guessing!"<p> I dont know, show me where it is in print?<p>Motion increases the Kinetic energy which increases the mass, and any increase in mass against gravity is relevent. <p>And phil, the only thing civil about you is your humor, however you try to pass it off a fact and then trip up. Then your tangents become a wild party of even more irrelevent fun.<p>At the end of the day, no one has proven these to be wrong, or that anything I have said on the subject to be incorrect. <p>Every one gets lost in their equations, the side lines, and their distractions and attacks, but not one has disproved any of these statements yet and they cant because the are true.<p>THE QUANTITY FOR MASS IS E=MC SQUARE AND THIS IS THE KINETIC ENERGY OF AN OBJECT. <p>THIS REPRESENTATION IF KINETIC ENERGY IS VALID AT ANY SPEED. <p>WHEN EVER THE ENERGY OF AN OBJECT IS INCREASED, THE MASS OF THE OBJECT INCREASES.<p>Every thing else is hog wash and distractions. <p>It all goes back to the FOOT/POUND V.S. the Pound FOOT, they ARE NOT Identical or interchangeable. <p>One is a standard, the other is colloquial and with out standard in its use. <p>Mass, inertia and momentum separate them and make them different. <p>But this is all rocket science and understandable why so many cant conceive these simple Ideas, so they go off on their little tangents of he said she said losing sight of the things that have been repeated over and over. <p>They don’t change guys, they remain the same, and this is why it works like it works, in the known universe. <p>THE QUANTITY FOR MASS IS E=MC SQUARE AND THIS IS THE KINETIC ENERGY OF AN OBJECT. <p>THIS REPRESENTATION IF KINETIC ENERGY IS VALID AT ANY SPEED. <p>WHEN EVER THE ENERGY OF AN OBJECT IS INCREASED, THE MASS OF THE OBJECT INCREASES.<p>For those who don’t like OLD books.....[2005 print] <p>
MASS in physics, quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. <p>IT IS, IN EFFECT, THE RESISTANCE THAT A BODY OF MATTER OFFERS TO A CHANGE IN ITS SPEED OR POSITION UPON THE APPLICATION OF A FORCE. <p>The greater the mass of a body, the smaller the change produced by an applied force.<p>For years it was assumed that the mass of a body always remained invariable. This notion, expressed as the theory of conservation of mass, held that the mass of an object or collection of objects never changes, no matter how the constituent parts rearrange themselves

With the advent of the special theory of relativity by Einstein in 1905, the notion of mass underwent a radical revision. Mass lost its absoluteness. <p>THE MASS OF AN OBJECT WAS SEEN TO BE EQUIVALENT TO ENERGY, TO BE INTER-CONVERTIBLE WITH ENERGY, and to increase significantly at exceedingly high speeds near that of light (about 3× 108 meters per second, or 186,000 miles per second).<p> THE TOTAL ENERGY OF AN OBJECT WAS UNDERSTOOD TO COMPRISE ITS REST MASS AS WELL AS ITS INCREASE OF MASS CAUSED BY HIGH SPEED.<p>Einstein's mass–energy relation<p>relationship between mass (m) and energy (E) in the special theory of relativity of Albert Einstein, embodied by the formula E = mc 2<p>In physical theories prior to that of special relativity, mass and energy were viewed as distinct entities. Furthermore, the energy of a body at rest could be assigned an arbitrary value. <p>IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY, HOWEVER, THE ENERGY OF A BODY AT REST IS DETERMINED TO BE MC 2. THUS, EACH BODY OF MASS M POSSESSES MC 2 OF “REST ENERGY,....... which potentially is available for conversion to other forms of energy. <p>inertia
property of a body by virtue of which it opposes any agency that attempts to put it in motion or, if it is moving, to change the magnitude or direction of its velocity. Inertia is a passive property and does not enable a body to do anything except oppose such active agents as forces and torques. A moving body keeps moving not because of its inertia but only because of the absence of a force to slow it down, change its course, or speed it up.<p>There are two numerical measures of the inertia of a body: its mass, which governs its resistance to the action of a force, and its moment of inertia (q.v.) about a specified axis, which measures its resistance to the action of a torque about the same axis.<p>RELATIVISTIC MASS in the special theory of relativity, the mass that is assigned to a body in motion. In physical theories prior to special relativity, the momentum p and energy E assigned to a body of mass m and velocity v were given by the formulas p = m v and E = E 0 + 1/2m v 2, where the value of the “rest energy” E 0 was undetermined. In special relativity the corresponding formulas for p and E, respectively, are p = m v/ ?((1 - v 2/c 2)) and E = m c 2/ ?((1 - v 2/c 2)) , where c equals the speed of light (300,000 kilometers [186,000 miles] per second) and m is the “rest mass” of the body (i.e., its mass as determined when the body is at rest). It is convenient for certain purposes to define the relativistic mass m R of a body by the formula m R = m/ ?((1 - v 2/c 2)) . Then, for all velocities we have the simple formulas p = m R v and E = m R c 2 for the momentum and energy of a body. The relativistic mass m R becomes infinite as the velocity of the body approaches the speed of light, so, even if large momentum and energy are arbitrarily supplied to a body, its velocity always remains less than c.<p>[ September 26, 2005: Message edited by: Chris Smith ]</p>

User avatar
philba
Posts: 2050
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Go stand in the corner, Chris

Post by philba » Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:22 pm

Sir, I have been extremely civil with you despite constant provocation on your part. On the other hand, you have failed to be civil in the great bulk of your discourse. Dogma and insult do not make for civil discourse.

positronicle
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 1:01 am
Contact:

Re: Go stand in the corner, Chris

Post by positronicle » Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:18 pm

--Edited by Positronicle--

User avatar
Chris Smith
Posts: 4325
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Bieber Ca.

Re: Go stand in the corner, Chris

Post by Chris Smith » Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:26 pm

Phil...Actually your reply was more like some one in orbit?
Patronizing and distracted from the discussion at hand. <p>Phil
oh, so the guvamunt created the new hurricane to deflect criticism from the Katrina response. Hmmm, amazing... <p>
All I could think of was... Wow, the mind of Frank Zappa on acid at work here for sure? <p>Any brashness on my part is to emphasize the complete errors made here. <p>“Only in a Einstein world”, or “it only applies some times”,.... is the typical crap that I am dealing with so brash, is very appropriate to some one who banged their head against the wall and called it a pillow bounce? Almost as good as peeing and saying its raining. <p>Sometimes you can call it a “WAKE UP”, You so wrong I cant stop laughing. <p>But I enjoyed all of the distractions, the words put in my mouth, and comparisons that have nothing to do with what was at hand, and was mildly amused at how many thought they won something, while missing the whole point of the physics example. Foot pounds and pounds feet, at the end of the day remain two different animals. One is a standard, the other is not. <p>As from the beginning, as in the end, no one has managed to dislodge any of my statements as being untrue. They have made plenty of statements on their own, claimed they were similar to what I said, and still failed to dislodge the basics that I put forward. It was fun, while it lasted.

Mike
Posts: 1813
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Go stand in the corner, Chris

Post by Mike » Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:06 pm

You know, this may be one of those arguments best suited for the PM feature of the board. Rather than turning an argument into a 34-post physics book, maybe chris and terri should settle this in a less public way...

Enzo
Posts: 276
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Lansing, Michigan, USA
Contact:

Re: Go stand in the corner, Chris

Post by Enzo » Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:41 pm

Well, I just read through this whole exchange. There is ten minutes out of my life I will never get back. What a waste of time.<p>The last thing I would want to do is ban somebody. This is a silly discussion. Chris, you don't help your case with juvenile responses to others.

Will
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Katy Texas
Contact:

Re: Go stand in the corner, Chris

Post by Will » Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:45 pm

Sorry guys,
I've been sleeping and trying to dodge a hurricane so I failed to note that this (enjoyable) diatribe had switched to a new thread (if some of you don't like it then why don't you just not watch it - there seems to be planty space on the board for it and the owners have not voiced any complaint)
An interesting point I noticed about Chris' lengthy post of Sep 26 3.03 pm ?) was that, the last thirteen or so paragraphs beginning with " IT IS IN EFFECT - - -" did not include a single spelling or grammar error ! Ipso Facto . . they were not written by Chris and he doesn't understand them - they have been directly copied from some other publication. I also think he may have found a way of copying text directly to the thread, otherwise his contribution would surely have included typos ?.
See my last contribution on the ' Green Laser ' thread I doubt that it's precisely correct so that ought to stir up the bottom a little.
BB

Mike
Posts: 1813
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Go stand in the corner, Chris

Post by Mike » Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:19 pm

yep, you're right. Take a look at this:<p>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9051285<p>I somehow dobut that an encyclopedia would copy a guy in an argument on a forum, so, hmmm... who copied what?<p>Before making a deal about people not learning physics in high school, maybe you should have paid attention to all the lessons teachers gave about how plagiarism isnt just wrong - IT'S ILLEGAL. And if your using it to try and say "HA I TOLD YOU IM SMARTER" It just shows how you're the exact opposite.<p>So either shut up with your plagiarism before you get this board shut down, or fight about this using a personal message.<p>And I'd suggest you delete all posts you copied from the internet right now.

User avatar
Chris Smith
Posts: 4325
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Bieber Ca.

Re: Go stand in the corner, Chris

Post by Chris Smith » Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:19 pm

Im sure you have heard about quotation marks, and if you havent,it means ...."And I quote", ....hardly plagerism.<p>And then the other geek term is called "Cut and paste", you know when you copy some thing for SOME ONE ELSE because they are having trouble "getting it" , again, hardly plagerism.<p>And then you have to sign your name to something claiming it was yours before plagerism applies, "you attempt to pass it off as yours" as in "kidnapping" the root of the word, and not just a cut and paste job but claim it is actually YOUR WORK.<p> But what do your know, your teacher explained it all but you forgot? <p>Plagerism is the theft of an Idea or words, that you claim to have written your self. <p>Perhaps you were trying to confuse it with "Copy write", but then that doesnt apply either when you buy the disk. <p>You have the right to copy it. <p>Some one needs a Physics book, and a dictionary.<p>And I forgot the important part. <p>I claimed that [many times] these quotes were from the physics book in the first place, so as not to trust my words, and so you cant argue with the book,..... hence you make one more moot point not relating to anything..<p>[ September 27, 2005: Message edited by: Chris Smith ]</p>

Enzo
Posts: 276
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Lansing, Michigan, USA
Contact:

Re: Go stand in the corner, Chris

Post by Enzo » Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:00 pm

"Copy write"???<p>Did you mean copyright?

User avatar
Chris Smith
Posts: 4325
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Bieber Ca.

Re: Go stand in the corner, Chris

Post by Chris Smith » Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:20 pm

All the spalling kweens today, and I hate english. <p>I didnt learn it 30 years ago, Im sure not wasting my time today.<p>I prefur phonetic anyhoo.

Mike
Posts: 1813
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Go stand in the corner, Chris

Post by Mike » Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:42 pm

Correction...no, you do not.<p>I do not see any links posted by you to the website you quoted it from. Therefore, its plagerism and illegal to use.

User avatar
Chris Smith
Posts: 4325
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Bieber Ca.

Re: Go stand in the corner, Chris

Post by Chris Smith » Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:05 pm

Thanks for your joke mike. It was worth it. <p>Do your home work a little better next time.

rshayes
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 1:01 am
Contact:

Re: Go stand in the corner, Chris

Post by rshayes » Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:19 pm

In the academic world, quoting from a reference without giving it proper credit is not a joke. At the least, it is unethical conduct even if the material is not copyrighted. If the material is copywrited, it may also be illegal.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests