|
February 24th, 2013 | #141 | ||||||
Ole' Cyber Crusher
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
v= dx/dt so its the integral of 2/x^2, which I guess is -2/x, so t=-2/x. What would this even physically mean? That as you go forward time constantly contracts until there is no time?
__________________
http://tinychat.com/finalposition2 Last edited by Nigel Thornberry; February 25th, 2013 at 11:58 AM. |
||||||
February 24th, 2013 | #142 | |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 290
|
Quote:
(x)dx/dt is meaningless, and tells calculus-aware person that you are copypaste troll. proper notation would be dx/dt, f(t)dt, f(x)dx, f(x,t)dxdt WHEN t (or x) approaches 0. v=dx/dt - velocity [vector], INSTANT change of distance over INSTANT change in time [approaching 0]. a=d^2x/dt^2 - INSTANT change of velocity over INSTANT time change. AKA 'acceleration' which happens to be second derivative of distance over time. |
|
February 25th, 2013 | #143 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
|
|
February 25th, 2013 | #144 | ||||
Ole' Cyber Crusher
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Relativistic mass is simple to measure - just heat water and observe how much mass it gains from the heating, it will follow m=E/c^2 Quote:
__________________
http://tinychat.com/finalposition2 Last edited by Nigel Thornberry; February 25th, 2013 at 02:51 AM. |
||||
February 25th, 2013 | #145 | |
Ole' Cyber Crusher
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
|
Quote:
DURRRRH
__________________
http://tinychat.com/finalposition2 |
|
February 25th, 2013 | #146 | |
Ole' Cyber Crusher
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
|
Quote:
The main assumption in when this was proven was that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames (which as I mentioned earlier is easy to know because a photon is massless and thus gives us the maximum velocity) . E=mc^2 is actually a simplification for a particle at rest, Lorentzian transformation specifies coordinates in such a way that momentum is defined as m*gamma*velocity, where gamma is the Lorentzian factor. The rest is integration, at low velocities the Lorentz factor goes to the limit of 1 which is why for slow objects E=1/2*m*v^2 is a legitimate approximation of it's kinetic energy. Basically , the answer is as always - because math. I can't give you an explanation that's more exact than that, it's simply humanly impossible. The experiments show a behavior then the mathematicians figure out how to fit it into a model with predictive abilities.
__________________
http://tinychat.com/finalposition2 |
|
February 25th, 2013 | #147 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
|
it's vs. its version 2178
. . ."it's corresponding force carrier". . .
The It's vs. Its page If you're confused by these two little words, you've come to the right place. (Not that there aren't other right places.) It's is a contraction for it is or it has. Its is a possessive pronoun meaning, more or less, of it or belonging to it. And there is absolutely, positively, no such word as its'. A simple test If you can replace it[']s in your sentence with it is or it has, then your word is it's; otherwise, your word is its. Another test Its is the neuter version of his and her. Try plugging her into your sentence where you think its belongs. If the sentence still works grammatically (if not logically) then your word is indeed its. Examples It's been good to know you. Contraction: it has It's a bird! It's a plane! Contraction: it is The dodo bird is known for its inability to fly. Possessive pronoun: its inability = the dodo bird's inability http://garyes.stormloader.com/its.html |
February 25th, 2013 | #148 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
|
Nothing. That part of my post was illustrative only. My only purpose was illustrating the method of simple integration. I thought that was obvious. I simply chose at random some variable and a function. I was not actually trying to model anything or describe any object's or particle's velocity. Illustrative only that part. I guess I should have made it clearer. I main thing I wanted to show was that integrating x with respect to x gives 1/2x^2 plus some constant. |
February 25th, 2013 | #149 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
|
Quote:
But, xdx/dt is not meaningless. Have you never seen or set up a differential equation? What's this, for example? xdx/dt + 4t = 0 Differential equation. How do you solve it? Isn't it this? Isn't it separation of variables? xdx = -4tdt Yes, it is. Then integrate both sides of the equation. We get: 1/2x^2 = -2t^2 + C Had I supplied an initial condition we could solve the general solution for C. How about this? Y' (y prime) = x/y y(1) = 3 You know what y' represents don't you, Mr Treat-Liebnitz-With-Respect-at-all Times? dy/dx = x/y Separating the variables, we get: ydy = xdx Integrating both sides we get: 1/2y^2 = 1/2x^2 + C Applying initial condition: 1/2(3^2) = 1/2(1^2) + C C = 4 So it looks like we have the upper branch of the hyperbola y^2 - x^2 = 8 What a couple of these posts have told me is that a couple of people stopped their calculus courses short. Differential equations, guys. Forms such as xdx/dt, xdy/dx, and so on are common throughout science, mathematics and engineering. |
|
February 25th, 2013 | #150 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
|
|
February 25th, 2013 | #151 | |
Ole' Cyber Crusher
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
|
Quote:
__________________
http://tinychat.com/finalposition2 |
|
February 25th, 2013 | #152 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
|
Quote:
Another way of writing 2/x^2 is 2x^-2. It's always easier if you can rewrite a fraction into that form before integrating. That way you are not struggling with a denominator. Integrating 2x^-2 gives 2(-x^-1), which we then can rewrite as -2/x As I already said, the first part of that post was illustrative only. But it could model something I suppose. As you probably know, a negative sign in physics can signify a change in direction. Thus a reversal of direction would give some negative value for x, say -12. This in turn would give -2/-12 = 1/6. |
|
February 25th, 2013 | #153 | |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 290
|
Quote:
By changing the subject to patronizing over copy-pasted differential equations, you committed straw man fallacy, and therefore accepted the fact that you are full of shit. Good. I wouldn't respond to your yapping any more - you are a malevolent dumb troll to be ignored. |
|
February 25th, 2013 | #154 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
|
Quote:
|
|
February 25th, 2013 | #155 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,145
|
|
February 25th, 2013 | #156 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
|
What, you can't comment on the subject of this thread yourself because you flat can't and have to wait for someone to try to find something wrong with some math and then post a retarded picture?
This is different from a nigger, how? They have to sit back and wait for someone else to try to defend their favorite delusions, too. |
February 25th, 2013 | #157 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
|
No, she posted that because you act like an infected twat, just like Nigel & Roy-boy, only not quite as bad. At least you try to say something that makes sense, those other two only throw shit wads all over the place.
|
February 25th, 2013 | #158 | |||
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 135
|
Ok. Don't expect that patronizing, denigration and mockery is going to work with me. It so happens that you are dealing with a PhD theoretical physicist so be assured that my mathematical training goes far beyond ODEs. I learned ODEs as a sophomore in undergraduate school over 55 years ago. Oh, and the engineering physics courses I mentioned in my original post were the least advanced subjects that I taught in the physics department of a large Midwestern state university.
Now, here is the solution of "Goode's equation." I will assmue that all variables have no dimensions. (contrary to what Goode has assumed.) I will do this in baby steps Goode's equation as given in post # 37 of this thread: v = x ( dx/dt) now notice that v = dx/dt by definition Thus making the substitution for v dx/dt = x (dx/dt) now subtract dx/dt from both sides 0 = x (dx/dt) - dx/dt now factor 0 = (dx/dt)( x - 1 ) For this equation to be true, either one or both of the factors must equal 0. So either dx/dt = 0 or x = 1 or both. To go further, integrate the first possibility to produce x = K, where K is a constant. so now we have x = K or x = 1 or both. Next we have to enforce the boundary condition x(T) = something where T is the value of t for the boundary condition. So we see that x = K, ie x is constant, is the solution and K is the value of x at any value of t. If it happens that K =1 then both options were valid. HOWEVER "Goode's Equation" cannot describe a physical system since the equation is dimensionally nonsensical. (You have already claimed that you x was a distance and that t was time.) Thus it "illustrates" nothing physical. Hint: you could insert a dimensional constant which multiplies one of the sides of your equation and balances the dimensions. Of course that wouldn't change the fact that x = K (where K is a constant) is the solution. I'll give you a gift. Here are three references to dimensional analysis in the physical sciences. "Halliday and Resnick Physics" 2nd Edition, Vol I, p 45 section 3-9 Consistency of Units and Dimensions Quote:
Ibid, Vol II, Appendix F, p 40, Symbols, Dimensions, and Units for Physical quantities Quote:
Or perhaps the classic "Dimensional Analysis", P. W. Bridgman, Yale University Press. First edition 1922, my copy is revised edition. seventh printing, September 1956. Quote:
Halliday and Resnick is a well known University Physics text. P. W. Bridgman was a Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at Harvard in the days before the kikes overran the department. Mocking, denying facts, patronizing, and denigration will only make you look more and more stupid. But, of course, we'll see what you do next. The dog barks but the caravan moves on.
__________________
War and religion have always made a bilious sort of cocktail. ... E.T. Bell |
|||
February 25th, 2013 | #159 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
|
It's exhilarating to see the chosen have their asses handed to them by a Goy! Way to go Ryan!
|
February 25th, 2013 | #160 |
...
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,744
|
Hey Fred why don't you take a break from talking about asses and implying random people are jews?
It doesn't seem to work out well for the people who have been banned from VNN and come to think of it, it isn't really fair that they were held to a standard while you are not. I know you have to buy your way on here, but please. You're lowering the quality of the site and someone needs to pull the plug on whatever breathing machine you're hooked up to. |
Tags |
albert einstein, einstein, fraud, jew fraud, jew fraud einstein, jew lies, physics |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|