Post by: jha'dhur on April 05, 2006, 06:05:00 PM
1) Someguy is trying to tell me there isnt civil war in IRAQ.
2) White broads are bieng kidnapped and murdered like 5X/hr(according to Nancy Grace)
3) Some guy just tried to tell me that atomic structure is influenced by atmospheric pressure.
4) I just saw Bigfoot in my backyard.
5) One guy just told me that if something traveling at a constant velocity hits you it will not exert any force on your face. All the while I thought the reason he was missing teeth was because he was a goober.
6) WTF is xmedia???????????????????????????
Insert you BS here. Some have more than others.
Post by: jha'dhur on April 05, 2006, 08:22:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 5 2006, 07:21 PM) 
If you think he said that...then your an idiot...
did you notice he explained that when it hits your face....it will decelerate....F=ma???
Unless of course you are moving at the same speed....in which case....well how did it hit you?
God, this is funny....
This is spit milk through your nose funny....
I tried to give you and your clone hints: THE KEY is MOMENTUM and IMPULSE
Sum of the forces = mass * acelleration
Therefore:
-Gravity - Drag + Thrust = Mass * Acceleration
-g - D(v) + T(t) = M(t) * dv/dt
Note:
(v) = a function of velocity
(t) = a function of time
R.H.S. becomes d(Mv)/dt
Momentum (P) = d(Mv)/dt
Therefore the Sum of the Forces (LHS) = P
Consequently:
-g - D(dx/dt) + dT/dt = dP/dt
In words for the challenged:
-Gravity - Drag(t) + Thrust(t) = Momentum
This is commolnly know by engineers as the momentum balance:
Integration and application of boundary condition such as:
1) intial velecity v(o) =0
2) intiail mass m(o) = total mass
3) Thrust (usually fuel burn rate (mass/sec) <- note feedback)
4) Drag is based upon shape and wind conditions and craft (V) <- note feedback
ANY Questions:
If you like I might could dig up the numerical simulation I performed as part of numerical applications which will
demonstrate what:
Fuel/Mass ratio
Fuel Burn Rate
Will result in succesful rocket launch
This mathematical devlopment is very common.(i.e. real world) It is called force balance.
NOTE: This derivation is only good for vertical launch vehicle.
ANY QUESTIONS
Post by: killerbootsman on April 05, 2006, 08:28:00 PM
Post by: lordvader129 on April 05, 2006, 09:12:00 PM
when an object strikes another object neither object will maintain a constant velocity, therefore both objects are accelerated, therefore both objects have non-zero net forces acting on them
i really dont think i can make it much simpler than that
Post by: jha'dhur on April 05, 2006, 09:33:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 5 2006, 10:18 PM)
but the transfer of momentum requires force....
Prove it with an mathematical expression, Stop making shit up.
P.S. Your wife said that there is no transfer of force only "energy"
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 5 2006, 10:18 PM)
First of all...that is wrong....
P=d(Mx)/dt
F=d(Mv)/dt
IS it now.
QUOTE
When an object is acted upon by a force it experiences an acceleration according to Newton's 2nd Law.
Remembering that the acceleration is the time derivative of velocity this relation can be written as:
The quantity mv is called the linear momentum p of the moving object. Note that p is a vector quantity. The direction of p is the same as the direction of v.
Integrating F with respect to time we get:
The quantity is called the IMPULSE of the force F.
Impulse of a Force = Change of Momentum
This is sophomore physics a shame you have yet to master the concepts included in this quiz. I have done this problem several times and the BS answer you and vader provided are simply wrong.
The answer is staring you right in the face and you probably still dont understand. No doubt you will keep rambling on about F=ma which is only a starting point and doesnt adequatly describe real solutions.
Or spin some tangental semantics. Vader is a moron and he knows. Whether you can admit your latest misconception or not I will not loose any slip or miss a paycheck.
CHEERS A HOLE
P.S.
Link to first year quiz that you couldnt solve:
http://www.physics.i...z12/kw1th1a.htm
Post by: throwingks on April 05, 2006, 09:34:00 PM
If you want to get more visitors, you gotta make a better site than that.
Post by: jha'dhur on April 05, 2006, 10:02:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 5 2006, 10:50 PM)
Ah yes...slip of the type...there is no transfer of force....only transfer of energy
When the energy is transferred it exerts a force on the object
Your techno babble reminds me so much of Marvin the Martian..
Maybe he can recalibrate your neutrinsic flux capacitor.
LMAO
Post by: throwingks on April 05, 2006, 10:28:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 5 2006, 09:31 PM)
...this has got to be a joke 
Tell him what he's won!
Post by: _iffy on April 06, 2006, 12:12:00 PM
like in his rocket example
a rocket has a constantly changing mass because it burns fuel.
so his equation...
-Gravity - Drag + Thrust = Mass * Acceleration
should read...
-[(mass2-mass1)/t * v/t ] - Drag + Thrust = (mass2-mass1)/t * v/t
thrust is constant because the fuel exits the rocket at the same rate.(unless the nozzle has changed shape)
which simplifies to...
-[(mass2-mass1)/s * 9.98m/s^2] - d(Drag)/dt + thrust = (mass2-mass1)m/s^3
-Gravity(t) - Drag(t) +Thrust = not momentum.
where (t) is a function of time.
funny enough, m/s^3 is called a jerk.
Post by: PhatIrishBastard on April 06, 2006, 02:04:00 PM
QUOTE(_iffy @ Apr 6 2006, 01:19 PM)
xmedia misses alot of things.
like in his rocket example
a rocket has a constantly changing mass because it burns fuel.
First of xmedia, is a good friend of mine you are an idiot for listening to CockSR.
The only thing true about what you said is that the mass is changing.
Since the mass is changing momentum P = mass*velocity is always changing.
Other than that you are pretty most of what you have said is in your last few post was foolish.
CockSR is a obsessive dumb kid.
Can, I smoke COCK.
Post by: _iffy on April 06, 2006, 02:54:00 PM
QUOTE
The only thing true about what you said is that the mass is changing.
that was the only thing i was trying to say. The rest was to show jah'dur, errors due to his sloppyness.I have no dout in my mind that, jah'dur is capable of being right... it's just that he makes it hard for everyone else to agree.
BTW - my last few post have been questions.
Post by: PhatIrishBastard on April 06, 2006, 03:55:00 PM
http://exploration.g...ket/rktpow.html
Funny even NASA uses the momentum balance EQN that jah points out. (i.e. PUCK IS FULL OF SHIT)
Post by: jha'dhur on April 06, 2006, 04:28:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 6 2006, 05:20 PM)
This entire thread started because jha'dhur said that Newton's Second Law(F=ma) was useless
Actually what I said is that F = ma is only appropriate for objects in free fall.
The momentum balance is how we mathematically model propelled systems. (i.e rockets, cars, tranes, planes, boats)
I specifically chose the rocket example BECAUSE IT BLOWS YOUR BS NOTIONS OUT OF THE WATER.
And given motion in horizontal direction only gravity/ rather gravitation accleration isnt a factor since it is canceled out by normal force F(g) = -N.
QUOTE
Umm...this is actually why you dont use F=ma or P=mv when mass is not constant....
This is exactly why we use the momentum balance because the mass and the velocity can and are most likely changing.
Post by: jha'dhur on April 06, 2006, 04:35:00 PM
QUOTE(PhatIrishBastard @ Apr 6 2006, 03:11 PM)
CockSR is a obsessive dumb kid.
Can, I smoke COCK.
IS THAT COCK IN THE FLESH.
He looks like one of those downsydrome babies.
Yo! Puck, Im sorry. I didnt know you were handicapped
OOPS!! excuse me, challenged.
Post by: _iffy on April 06, 2006, 05:12:00 PM
Challenged is bad because it infers being sub-par.
puckSR - i have done calculas. It's just been a while
Post by: jha'dhur on April 06, 2006, 06:07:00 PM
QUOTE(_iffy @ Apr 6 2006, 06:19 PM)
The new P.C. term for retard is "differently abled"
Challenged is bad because it infers being sub-par.
puckSR - i have done calculas. It's just been a while
Either way, whoever that is he is one evil looking sum a b*tch.
PUCK, VADER is that mediax or is it one of you.
He looks like he is about to eat a plate of "caks"
LOL.....
Post by: slightly_damp on April 07, 2006, 12:22:00 AM
Post by: PhatIrishBastard on April 07, 2006, 11:23:00 AM
QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 6 2006, 04:42 PM)
IS THAT COCK IN THE FLESH.
He looks like one of those downsydrome babies.
Yo! Puck, Im sorry. I didnt know you were handicapped
OOPS!! excuse me, challenged.
Yep, that is our beloved COCKSR.....
Is it me or does he look like Corcky the retard.
I cant tell em apart from about 10 inches.
COCKSR do you were a diaper?
P.S. I just found my new sig.....
Post by: PhatIrishBastard on April 07, 2006, 11:43:00 AM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 7 2006, 11:36 AM)
How old are you IrishBastard......11?
Is that the best you can do...insulting a grainy picture of mine that you stole off of another website?
If it is...thats just pitiful.
I wonder who the stalker is....
maybe the guy who went and grabbed my pic off another site....and then continues to post it for months....with childish humor and rather strange insults?
Go ahead and make an ass out of yourself...but I am not quite sure what your trying to accomplish
Actually the pic is from this site.
Other than you proving you think like a retard I am letting everyone else determine wheter they think you LOOK like a retard.
So actually I am not proving anything.
I AM MEDIA X
LMAO
Post by: throwingks on April 07, 2006, 04:28:00 PM
QUOTE(PhatIrishBastard @ Apr 7 2006, 10:50 AM)
I AM MEDIA X
LMAO
I missed you!!! I like having you around.
LMAO
Post by: jha'dhur on April 07, 2006, 05:03:00 PM
QUOTE(throwingks @ Apr 7 2006, 05:35 PM)
I missed you!!! I like having you around.
But I am MEDIA X
Post by: jha'dhur on April 07, 2006, 05:36:00 PM
QUOTE(PhatIrishBastard @ Apr 7 2006, 12:30 PM)
Yep, that is our beloved COCKSR.....
Is it me or does he look like Corcky the retard.
I cant tell em apart from about 10 inches.
COCKSR do you were a diaper?
P.S. I just found my new sig.....
Seperated at birth but RETARDED 4 LIFE
LMAO
Post by: jha'dhur on July 13, 2006, 05:33:00 AM
The resemblance is shocking!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: jha'dhur on July 13, 2006, 09:25:00 AM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 13 2006, 10:17 AM)
LOL...
So...when you cant make a good argument anymore....you just decide to go the ad hominom route?
Its cute jha'dhur...but really pathetic.
I hope one day you get this whole gravity thing figured out, and the whole evolution thing while your at it.
BTW, this may actually make for interesting conversation with my friends.
A person who is just not a creationist....but who has some insane idea about early man not being black. And black people coming from the "white" adam and eve via inter-slave marriage.
Your a hoot....keep it coming
Actually Adam AND Eve were shemites or asians.
Given the fact that God said he would make the descendants of Jacob as numerous as the grains of sands on the beach the nearly 2 billion asians on earth would be a good indicator.
Plus, god made man from soil, soil isnt white.
P.S. How is that an insult "you"said you were descended from apes, therefroe the missing link is your cousin.
Post by: jha'dhur on July 13, 2006, 01:16:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 13 2006, 02:42 PM)
Wow...you really are stupid, arent you?
Humans descended from apes almost 5 million years ago...so how is an ape my cousin?
You cant prove either statement.
QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 13 2006, 02:42 PM)
We are made from dirt?
LMAO
Lets see..
People are made of dirt
Dinosaurs didnt exist
And objects in motion have continual force
This just gets dumber and dumber.
Actually dinosauars did exist we have dug them up, just not any scientific evidence to support your other claims
QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 13 2006, 02:42 PM)
By the same token of extended relations...your the son of Cain.
Not quite..
Post by: jha'dhur on July 14, 2006, 05:15:00 AM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 13 2006, 10:48 PM)
Yes....you can....and it has been proven...repeatedly.
Im glad you finally flushed out as a full blown nutjob. For awhile I thought you were just a fairly annoying person who was constantly changing his statements on science. Since the conversations eventually led to you withdrawing your previous and erroneous statements...I didnt care....
But at least now it is very clear that you are either psychotic, insane, or both.
Humans evolved from other primates
The earth is over 4 billion years old.
Objects in motion do not "have" force. They can "exert" force when interacting with another object.
Adam and Eve never existed.
There are more than 2 billion stars in the sky, there are more than 6 billion stars in the sky.
The earth and all of the other planets in this solar system could not support 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000(number of stars) people, even if they each only got 1 sq ft of ground to stand on.
Heck...we could bunch them in tighter...lets say 10 people for every 1 sq ft of space in the entire solar system...and you would still have less people than the numbers of stars.
Now, going back to sand....
There is far fewer grains of sand on the beach then stars in the sky
There are approx 1.30 × 10^9 grains of sand for every square meter of beach. So unless your beach is the size of a sandbox...your way off.
If there were as many people as grains of sand, we might be able to squeeze them onto the total surface area of the planets of the solar system....but since half of that surface area is unlivable...I doubt it.
Your grasp of large numbers is severly lacking...but thank you for playing.
Do the math....Im right.
Pleae keep on going my buddies are reading this.
Post by: jha'dhur on July 14, 2006, 09:04:00 AM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 14 2006, 10:37 AM)
And?
Its just math jha....
You cannot really debate it....
God apparently told one person his offspring would number as many as the stars in heaven
And you just informed me that God told someone else that he would have as many offspring as grains of sand on the beach.
You just seem to underappreciate how many grains of sand and stars exist.
Dont worry, its probably the same reason you dont trust evolution.
You completely lack the capacity to understand such large numbers.
Actually, you were the MORON trying to imply that we can count 4 atoms in 6.023E23 atoms.
Along with your brother and your alter account.
Post by: PhatIrishBastard on July 17, 2006, 07:32:00 AM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 14 2006, 10:06 AM)
Did I?
I certainly dont remember that claim.
I also remember you claiming to work at a nuclear facility....which i am now fairly confident you do not.
Hmm...but then I explain...
Which is actually a huge mistake....Im suprised you didnt catch it...since we are obviously dealing with volume...i should have said cubic meter.
I was just so tired from calculating the surface area of all of the planets in the solar system in sq. ft.
But...the point remains valid...if the average cubic meter of sand contains over a billion grains...then God has a long way to go if He plans to make the descendents of jacob as numerous as grains of sand.
You are definately the internet stalker cock.
And look up the definition of metaphor.
And I am fairly sure you arent an engineer at any prestigous university from your lack of undestanding beyond googling it.
You always spout of, and when asked to "explain" something you (& Vader) S.T.F.U.
Post by: puckSR on July 17, 2006, 11:13:00 AM
QUOTE
And look up the definition of metaphor.
LOL...I may be wrong...but I dont think that jha'dhur believes the Bible is full of "metaphors". If God said "same as the number of stars"...God meant "same as the number of stars"...right jha'dhur?
QUOTE
And I am fairly sure you arent an engineer at any prestigous university from your lack of undestanding beyond googling it.
????
Didn't me and my ex-roommate spend days trying to explain basic physics to all of you?
I remember you and jha'dhur posting website after website...and I remember that I wrote most of the equations from memory. I also remember having to REPEATEDLY try to explain the concept of the derivative to jha'.
You apparently remembered that you can model most static with free body diagrams...but then failed to point out that force diagrams(w/ respect to gravity) use the famous law F=ma repeatedly....even though they are calculations for STATIC systems...not "objects in free-fall"
QUOTE
You always spout of, and when asked to "explain" something you (& Vader) S.T.F.U.
Really???
Can you find a single instance where I refused to "explain" something that I posted about either mathematics or physics?
HMMMM????
Of course you cannot...even after I played around with that gravity thread for weeks....until we eventually got jha'dhur to drop his silly claim that F=ma is a "gross oversimplification used only to model objects in free fall".
Post by: PhatIrishBastard on July 17, 2006, 11:54:00 AM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 17 2006, 11:20 AM)
LOL...I may be wrong...but I dont think that jha'dhur believes the Bible is full of "metaphors". If God said "same as the number of stars"...God meant "same as the number of stars"...right jha'dhur?
????
Didn't me and my ex-roommate spend days trying to explain basic physics to all of you?
I remember you and jha'dhur posting website after website...and I remember that I wrote most of the equations from memory. I also remember having to REPEATEDLY try to explain the concept of the derivative to jha'.
You apparently remembered that you can model most static with free body diagrams...but then failed to point out that force diagrams(w/ respect to gravity) use the famous law F=ma repeatedly....even though they are calculations for STATIC systems...not "objects in free-fall"
Really???
Can you find a single instance where I refused to "explain" something that I posted about either mathematics or physics?
HMMMM????
Of course you cannot...even after I played around with that gravity thread for weeks....until we eventually got jha'dhur to drop his silly claim that F=ma is a "gross oversimplification used only to model objects in free fall".
S.O. fracking S..
Post by: jha'dhur on October 02, 2006, 07:38:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Oct 1 2006, 05:14 PM)
I am an engineer...I do not have a degree in physics. Engineering is applied physics.
Mathematics and engineering.....
Phoenix Online or ITT Tech, Let me guess University of Bangladesh
QUOTE(puckSR @ Oct 1 2006, 05:14 PM)
You didnt ask the question...but once again your bringing up your ignorance jha.
You want me to assume all sorts of alternative forces acting on the rocket. You want me to assume all sorts of "real-world" action taking place.
However....none of those extras were mentioned in the question.
It is still sad...jha'dhur...you cannot believe that a constant mass travelling at constant velocity has a net force =0..
Why would you have to assume "reality" wise one.
But anyways, prove your statement should be easy for a EE, mathematics applied engineer and altar boy like yourself.
Post by: Xombe on October 03, 2006, 05:26:00 AM
Yes, this forum gets some leeway most of the time, but you guys are way out of line.
I know you're reading and that this will just shatter your little worlds, but learn now that XS is not here to provide you with a soapbox to bitch, argue and flame from. I got no vendetta, and I'm a lazy, lazy man. Two mouse clicks close any account, yours or not.. new or not. A sliver of a coffee break.
If you think this is a combative challenge then you need to seek some outside help in the real world. No joke. We're not going to feed your egos or give you justification for some kind of self-percieved rebellion/crusade/digital masterbation. Bark elsewhere to get your fix. Feel free to argue, just do it like civil human beings, and not insecure college keyboard jockeys who thing the world owes them an outlet or paranoid conspiracy fantasy.
Closed: Believe me, closed.