"Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:alak5q$pao$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> In article "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> writes:
> <
> <
> <"Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> <news:al8l3m$naf$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...> <> "Thalamus" <zhil at online.no> writes:
> <> <
> <> <Get this shit out of here (bionet.neuroscience) or you'll get tossed.
> <> <
> <> <Brian
> <> <
> <>
> <> Brian! Yo, son, where ya been? Here I was, all cheerfully going
> <> through your physics homework to find your mistake for you, and
> <> when I turned around you had run off! An inadvertancy, I'm sure.
> <> Here, let me get you back up to speed. No, I insist.
> <>
> <>
> <>
> <> [ You had written:]
> <>
> <>
> <> < It was like this, retard:
> <> <
> <> < F=m(v/t) - a=(v-v0)/t - a is acceleration,v is velocity, t is time, F
is
> <> < force
> <> <
> <> < t=mv/F - exchanging t with F, see the likeness of the equations ??
> <> <
> <> < t=mv/ma - insert ma instead of F (F=ma)
> <> < t=v/a - shorten the thing, by dispatching off with m (mass).
> <> < t=(S/t)/a - here's the tricky part, insert S/t instead of v (S=vt or
in
> <my
> <> < opinion v=S/t).
> <> < t=(S/ta) - shorten the whole thing, so it is elegant.
> <> < t²=(S/a) - transfer t to one side of the equation, and voila !!
> <> < t=sqr(S/a) - you have Brian's equation of time, height and
acceleration.
> <>
> <>
> <> [ warmed by your enthusiasm for the topic, I responded:]
> <>
> <> Yep, that's what you get, all right: Brian's equation. Unfortunately,
> <> Mr. Newton's equation differs from yours by a factor of two, as I
> <> originally pointed out.
> <>
> <>
> <> [ we continue, in the same vein:]
> <>
> <> <
> <> < You loose, I win - as I am a Superior White God, and you're just a
silly
> <> < feminine creature :-)
> <> <
> <>
> <> Sorry, SWG, but this silly feminine creature realizes that
> <> there's an implicit assumption of linearity in your step 5, where
> <> you substitute S/t for v. That's true only for uniform velocity;
> <> it's not true under acceleration, where velocity is constantly
> <> increasing. In that case you can't do it (in a straightforward
> <> manner) with algebra, you have to use calculus. In particular,
> <> you have to integrate:
> <>
> <> dS/dt = a*t, or
> <> dS = integral (a*t*dt)
> <>
> <> the solution to which is, of course, 1/2 at^2, not at^2. Which
> <> is what I said originally. You fall a mile in 18 seconds, not
> <> two miles.
> <>
> <> As I said to John, check any physics book. Or if you're just
> <> too lazy, here's the first of a roughly a zillion hits on the net:
> <>
> <>
> <> http://c3po.lpl.arizona.edu/~jbarnes/nats102/HW2/> <>
> <>
> <> -- cary
> <>
> <>
> <>
> <>
> <> [ hey, T, looking through this, I find two mistakes on my part. The
> <> first is a simple misprint; the second is a mistake or is not a
mistake,
> <> depending on the limits of integration. Let's have some fun, eh: see
if
> <> you can find them ]
> <>
> <>
> <> -- cary
> <
> <
> <sheesh, cary, this is really getting embarrassing. This has got to come
to
> <an end. You were GIVEN the correct answer long ago. You were reminded
that
> <these masses were corrected by a *string*, not a *spring*. You yourself
> <watched these utterly STUPID feminazis who were given the answer sheet
and
> <the correct answer, who then continued to argue that this question was
> <"vague", that Brian's answer was wrong, that the question wasn't worded
> <properly, that there was no way to answer the question with the
information
> <given.
>>> Nice evasion, oh innumerate one. Now, let's try again, see if you
> can put up or shut up like a "man": is the eponymous "Brian's equation":
>> S = a t**2
>>> correct, or is my version (and Isaac Newton's) correct instead:
>> S = 1/2 a t**2 ?
>>>> Well? The whole world's watching, Johnny...
>>>> -- cary
The ONLY CORRECT answer, cary, which you keep chopping out of the posts, is:
> It was Galileo who discovered the whole ting, the equation says that the
time
> for a mass to fall is dependent on TWO things, acceleration and height,
NOT
> mass (which Galileo discovered).
This is THE ONE AND ONLY correct answer. You're only confusing yourself by
wallowing around in the equations. Brian already noted that you don't need
to do the simple math to answer the simple question, and he was right, and
you and the STUPID feminazis have done nothing but demonstrate NEGATIVE
KNOWLEDGE ever since.
http://christianparty.net/timssh04.htm
A simple "Yes" or "No" will do, cary. Is Brian's statement above correct,
or not?
If you're denying the TRUTH simply because you don't want these girls to
look as STUPID as they are, then you're an even bigger contributor to
NEGATIVE KNOWLEDGE than they are.
John Knight
