If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

[FalseFlag]

Are the Stundies still running?

Can't you come up with something better than this? Come on, the lurkers want entertainment and variety.

 

[pgimeno]

Dodge noted. Point proven.

 

[TJM]

Can't you come up with something better than this? Come on, the lurkers want entertainment and variety.

It was an appropriate response to what is quite frankly the weakest dodge I've seen around here in a LONG time. Just admit you're out of your league and move on?

OH. HELLLLL. NO!

 

[Mentalpygmy]

The only purpose of the exercise is to deflect attention away from the fact that skeptics deny any and everything that goes against their fantasy.

It's pure nonsense to make any sort of claim that a person needs to do calculus busy work in order to understand physics.

Skeptics can only play their game when the most simple facts are obscured by unnecessarily complexity. That is what they are trying to do here. It's easy to see, and I'm not playing the game.

An observation from the lurker's gallery - it looks like you're arguing from ignorance and incredulity - which does not make from strong points. And that's what us Lurkers actually want. Good, valid arguments, not a variety of dodges.

As for complaining about calculus busy work - aren't you demanding busy work of other posters which adds little if any value? Actually learning calculus would appear to be of great value.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Recap

The only purpose of the exercise is to deflect attention away from the fact that skeptics deny any and everything that goes against their fantasy.

It's pure nonsense to make any sort of claim that a person needs to do calculus busy work in order to understand physics.

Skeptics can only play their game when the most simple facts are obscured by unnecessarily complexity. That is what they are trying to do here. It's easy to see, and I'm not playing the game.

Hmm, I think a little re-cap is in order.

Once upon a time, tfk said:

ONE of us understands “middle school physics”.

FalseFlag responded:

No. We both do. The difference is that one of us isn't ignoring it.

This prompted tfk's epic post:

OK, here's a simple opportunity for you to prove it.
...
Use Eqn 1, above to generate:
the velocity vs. time equation
the acceleration vs. time equation
calculate the terminal velocity.

Show the graphs of the first two equations vs. time.

Show the data points from Fig. 12-77 on the empirical velocity graph & explain why they don't fall exactly on the velocity vs. time curve.

Saying that you understand physics is easy.
Now, show me.

I tried to make it easy for you, with this post.

But even that went south.

Here's a hint, FalseFlag:

To answer the questions posed by tfk and me, you would have had to understand that velocity is the time rate of change of position, and that acceleration is the time rate of change of velocity.

It's now obvious to everyone that you do NOT understand “middle school physics”.

Game over, dude.

 

[FalseFlag]

To answer the questions posed by tfk and me, you would have had to understand that velocity is the time rate of change of position, and that acceleration is the time rate of change of velocity.

This is funny, because I have said the same things numerous times earlier in this thread (and the first one). As usual, you choose to ignore what is obviously there just to further your weak arguments.

 

[DGM]

This is funny, because I have said the same things numerous times earlier in this thread (and the first one). As usual, you choose to ignore what is obviously there just to further your weak arguments.

Show where you have said the same thing.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Are the Stundies still running?

LOL, it's crystal clear he has no idea what the answer is, it's hilarious watching him try to dodge his way around it.

Science-1
FalseFlag- Yet another 0

Thread needs more popcorn.

 

[tfk]

Support a new investigation if you really want an answer.

No.

This country asked a couple hundred world class professionals to abandon what they were doing & come to its aid in one of its darkest hours.

Those (principally) engineers (plus other professions) answered the call, dedicated themselves to years of enormous effort & came up with an answer. That process was NOT easy.

They published their results, and ALL competent professionals accept their conclusions.

A few clueless amateurs don't accept them.
No competent professional cares what amateurs think.
None.
Not one.

You advocate tossing aside the efforts of the first group of engineers, because of the baseless, politically motivated, paranoid suspicions of a bunch of clueless amateurs, who have zero evidence for their stupid assertions.

The whole concept is beyond stupid, and incredibly disrespectful to the engineers who did the job.

Suppose that some Moron-In-Chief were stupid enough to follow this path. What happens the NEXT time the government asks for help from the US's technical resources?

They'll tell the government to take a hike. Why should they put out the effort, if it's going to be set aside, or second guessed by a bunch of clueless morons? (or 3rd guessed, or 4th guessed, until the morons get the answer that they want.)

So, no one who knows the slightest thing about managing people is going to support your suggestion.

The answer is "no".

 

[tfk]

Why won't you post your data?
Why won't you post your steps?

Because he, like me & the rest of us, want to see you attempt to fulfill your claim that "you know physics".

Actually, NOBODY expects that you have the slightest chance of fulfilling that claim.

We're waiting to see you fall on your face.

If you were so certain that you were correct, you would want to make sure as many people as possible could review your work and get the same results.

His answer is correct.
I did this same calculation, in a completely different manner, many years ago.

His graph is the same as mine.

Well, at least that is how it should work, but you're a skeptic, and obfuscation is what you thrive on.

LMAO.
Speaking of "obfuscation", do you REALLY think that anybody here buys your idiotic, lame excuses for running away from attempting to answer any of these questions?

PS. I (and probably every one here, with the possible exception of you, yankee & MicahJava) knows what Dave's "??" is.
Why don't you, Mister "I know physics"??

Here's a hint: 7.8*10¹² fathoms/fortnight²

 

[tfk]

The only purpose of the exercise is to deflect attention away from the fact that skeptics deny any and everything that goes against their fantasy.

Wrong again.

MY purpose of the exercise, the exercise that I started, is to demonstrate to YOU that you are either willfully lying or gravely deluded when you claim that "you know physics".

(There is no need to demonstrate your lying/delusions to the rest of us. We're all aware of the fact.)

"Gravely deluded" happens to be a pattern with you.

Meanwhile, where are those explosions that you asserted appeared in WTC7 in that WTC collapse video?

Just another claim that you've made (just like "I know physics") that you can not back up.

 

[waypastvne]

Here's a hint: 7.8*10¹² fathoms/fortnight²

For those of us who prefer to work in furlongs/fortnight instead of fathoms/fortnight.

1 fathom = 0.009090909 ferlong

 

[rwguinn]

Because he, like me & the rest of us, want to see you attempt to fulfill your claim that "you know physics".

Actually, NOBODY expects that you have the slightest chance of fulfilling that claim.

We're waiting to see you fall on your face.



His answer is correct.
I did this same calculation, in a completely different manner, many years ago.

His graph is the same as mine.



LMAO.
Speaking of "obfuscation", do you REALLY think that anybody here buys your idiotic, lame excuses for running away from attempting to answer any of these questions?

PS. I (and probably every one here, with the possible exception of you, yankee & MicahJava) knows what Dave's "??" is.
Why don't you, Mister "I know physics"??

Here's a hint: 7.8*10¹² fathoms/fortnight²

Pretty damn close.
I did a quick-and-dirty on it, looks pretty good, but quite frankly, I have a P-51D, a Spitfire Mk-II, and a Dirty Birdy that need my time and attention, and which will appreciate it a lot more than the obstinately ignorant do.

 

[FalseFlag]

MY purpose of the exercise, the exercise that I started, is to demonstrate to YOU that you are either willfully lying or gravely deluded when you claim that "you know physics".

And how would your example provide the proof you seek?

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

And how would your example provide the proof you seek?

It's like this, FF. Suppose you had said you understood "middle school arithmetic".

And then, suppose that a member of the forum challenged you to prove it, by stating the value of 1/2 + 1/3.

Then, suppose your answer was not the obvious answer, 5/6, but rather your whining

The only purpose of the exercise is to deflect attention away from the fact that skeptics deny any and everything that goes against their fantasy.

It's pure nonsense to make any sort of claim that a person needs to do arithmetic busy work in order to understand math.

Skeptics can only play their game when the most simple facts are obscured by unnecessarily complexity. That is what they are trying to do here. It's easy to see, and I'm not playing the game.

Let me give you a clue.

This would really be a very poor method for demonstrating publicly that you understand "middle school arithmetic."

P.S. The ??s on my curve correspond to 7.3x10¹² fathoms per fortnight² AFAICT.

 

[Myriad]

It's like this, FF. Suppose you had said you understood "middle school arithmetic".

And then, suppose that a member of the forum challenged you to prove it, by stating the value of 1/2 + 1/3.

Then, suppose your answer was not the obvious answer, 5/6, but rather your whining...

Suppose I asked my dog to alphabetize my DVD collection. Then suppose my dog actually did it.

That would have been a less surprising outcome than if FF had managed to answer your question.

 

[Steve001]

And how would your example provide the proof you seek?

The strategy and tactics of someone that does not have the knowledge is to reply with a question.

 

[NoahFence]

Can't you come up with something better than this? Come on, the lurkers want entertainment and variety.

How do you even know what a Stundie is?

 

[Criteria]

Suppose I asked my dog to alphabetize my DVD collection. Then suppose my dog actually did it.

That would have been a less surprising outcome than if FalseFlag had managed to answer your question.

In effect, what you are really saying is that in your opinion FalseFlag has an IQ level well below that of your dog.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove Forum Management Feedback issue. I have copied your post to a new thread in FMF here for this to be discussed.

 

[rwguinn]

Because he, like me & the rest of us, want to see you attempt to fulfill your claim that "you know physics".

Actually, NOBODY expects that you have the slightest chance of fulfilling that claim.

We're waiting to see you fall on your face.



His answer is correct.
I did this same calculation, in a completely different manner, many years ago.

His graph is the same as mine.



LMAO.
Speaking of "obfuscation", do you REALLY think that anybody here buys your idiotic, lame excuses for running away from attempting to answer any of these questions?

PS. I (and probably every one here, with the possible exception of you, yankee & MicahJava) knows what Dave's "??" is.
Why don't you, Mister "I know physics"??

Here's a hint: 7.8*10¹² fathoms/fortnight²

Pretty damn close.
I did a quick-and-dirty on it, looks pretty good, but quite frankly, I have a P-51D, a Spitfire Mk-II, and a Dirty Birdy that need my time and attention, and which will appreciate it a lot more than the obstinately ignorant do.

Waiting for glue to cure, paint to dry
Used Mathcad, got this:




Ain't it amazing--people use 4 different methods, all get the same answer.
Science and Mathematics: They actually work. every time.