Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old February 24th, 2013 #141
Nigel Thornberry
Ole' Cyber Crusher
 
Nigel Thornberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randal Goode View Post

Now, our good buddy Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz, who, many will recall, developed the calculus independently and simultaneously with Newton, he used to write up "change of x with respect to change of time as:

dx/dt
Yes.

Quote:
T of course representing time. This is Leibnitz notation, and we still use it today. It is a symbol for differentiation, a part of calculus. It's a lot easier than saying or writing "A change of x divided by a change of time."
Okay.


Quote:
So we now have v, for velocity, equals X times dx/dt.

v = (x)dx/dt
What the fuck? Velocity is just the change of position per unit of time since it's the slope of a x vs t graph.


Quote:
Integration is anti-differentiation. The reverse. Let's do some simple algebra here and find a differential equation that will lead us to a function for velocity in terms of time.

We get vdt = xdx.

Integrating both side of this equation gives

integral (that funny looking s symbol in calculus) vdt = integral xdx.

The left side then becomes v(t).
The left side is v(t)-v(0) then.

Quote:
The right side becomes 1/2 X^2 plus some constant C.
Plus v(0)

Quote:
That's integration. So our function for velocity with respect to time is

V(t) = 1/2 X^2 (one half x squared).
Okay and this is the velocity of what exactly?

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?

Last edited by Nigel Thornberry; February 25th, 2013 at 11:58 AM.
 
Old February 24th, 2013 #142
vened
Member
 
vened's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randal Goode View Post
Now, our good buddy Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz, who, many will recall, developed the calculus independently and simultaneously with Newton, he used to write up "change of x with respect to change of time as:

(x)dx/dt
First of all fuckface, Leibnitz is not 'our good buddy'. He is one of the greatest White minds which you will never be. Treat him with respect and drop that patronizing shit.

(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.
 
Old February 25th, 2013 #143
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

The Propaganda of Supremacy-Manufacture & Sale of Saint Einstein
 
Old February 25th, 2013 #144
Nigel Thornberry
Ole' Cyber Crusher
 
Nigel Thornberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter E. Kurtz View Post
Einstein's "famous" equation E=mc squared is a farce on its face. It doesn't take a scientist to figure that out. Einstein was obsessed about tring to come up with a simple equation that "unified" all mechanics and explained all relations between mass and "energy" in one simple, elegant equation. The "Unified Theory". Really?
Yes really, the only step left towards fully unifying all theories of the forces is to discover quantum gravity (already partially done) and it's corresponding force carrier.

Quote:
Does E=mc squared really explain all relationships between mass and "energy" everywhere throughout the universe? Why is the speed of light (c) squared and not cubed, or even tertiaried?
It's because the conserved quantity, energy, is defined in units of Force * distance which is equivalent to velocity squared times mass. It's an observable quantity.

Quote:
Doesn't make sense on its face. How does the speed of light have anything at all to do with the amount of potential energy any given object possesses?
How does an object's stored energy relate to how much kinetic energy it would release? Really? Why is it the speed of light? Simple, because my favorite force carrier , the photon, is massless and thus moves at the maximum speed allowed.

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:
C'mon folks, this ain't rocket science. Ask yourself, regardless of how great the jews have built up the alleged genius of Einstein, does that equation make sense to you?
Yes the conclusions made are profound and difficult to understand, why don't you actually try to understand them first before criticizing them you fool?

Last edited by Nigel Thornberry; February 25th, 2013 at 02:51 AM.
 
Old February 25th, 2013 #145
Nigel Thornberry
Ole' Cyber Crusher
 
Nigel Thornberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian View Post
I don't accept science as great when it is based on theories.

So it is Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Great science is Newton's Law of Motion, and Boyle's Law of Gases; they are proved by real measurement.
Theories are more descriptive than Laws. They often encompass laws underneath themselves.

DURRRRH
 
Old February 25th, 2013 #146
Nigel Thornberry
Ole' Cyber Crusher
 
Nigel Thornberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter E. Kurtz View Post
Wow, how convenient! Most convenient, in fact. Out of the blue you just plop that your variable "v" (1/2 mv squared) is actually, and all along "c", the velocity of light, which is a known constant and not the variable "v", usually used to designate a variable - velocity . Wow, now that's what I call convenient. "and therefore c because of the limits" .... What limits? Did I miss something? Note: I have no problems with f=ma, that's common sense. But to try to manipulate that to e=mc squared is fradulent on its face. Why you, or anyone else can't see that is beyond my guesses.
Okay I will be fair - his explanation wouldn't have convinced me either.


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.
 
Old February 25th, 2013 #147
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Default 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
 
Old February 25th, 2013 #148
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Thornberry View Post
Okay and this is the velocity of what exactly?

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.
 
Old February 25th, 2013 #149
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vened View Post
First of all fuckface, Leibnitz is not 'our good buddy'. He is one of the greatest White minds which you will never be. Treat him with respect and drop that patronizing shit.

(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.
Again, see right above. That was illustrative only.

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.
 
Old February 25th, 2013 #150
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vened View Post
First of all fuckface, Leibnitz is not 'our good buddy'. He is one of the greatest White minds which you will never be. Treat him with respect and drop that patronizing shit.
And pull the rag out of your ass. Lighten up, you'll live longer.
 
Old February 25th, 2013 #151
Nigel Thornberry
Ole' Cyber Crusher
 
Nigel Thornberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
. . ."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
I know my grammar isn't the best, thanks for catching it.
 
Old February 25th, 2013 #152
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Thornberry View Post
v= dx/dt so its the integral of 2/x^2, which I guess is -1/x, so t=-1/x. What would this even physically mean? That as you go forward time constantly contracts until there is no time?
The integral of 2/x^2 is -2/x, plus some constant.

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.
 
Old February 25th, 2013 #153
vened
Member
 
vened's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randal Goode View Post
But, xdx/dt is not meaningless. Have you never seen or set up a differential equation?
In a context of the original message it's meaningless and wrong. And it's not a differential equation since you dumb ass didn't include the equation part.

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.
 
Old February 25th, 2013 #154
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vened View Post
And it's not a differential equation since you dumb ass didn't include the equation part.

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.
I wouldn't post anymore, either, were I you. You took one calculus class, maybe, and are not familiar with DE's. Your first sentence I quoted above reveals that. So did your first post.
 
Old February 25th, 2013 #155
Angel Ramsey
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randal Goode View Post
I wouldn't post anymore, either, were I you. You took one calculus class, maybe, and are not familiar with DE's. Your first sentence I quoted above reveals that. So did your first post.
 
Old February 25th, 2013 #156
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel Ramsey View Post
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.
 
Old February 25th, 2013 #157
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randal Goode View Post
What, you can't comment on the subject of this thread yourself
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.
 
Old February 25th, 2013 #158
A. Ryan
Junior Member
 
A. Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 135
Default

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:
One way to spot an erroneous equation is to check the DIMENSIONS of all of its terms.
And this:
Ibid, Vol II, Appendix F, p 40, Symbols, Dimensions, and Units for Physical quantities
Quote:
Quantity Symbol Dimensions
Energy E M L^2 T^(-2)
And this
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:
Chapter 1
p 1

Applications of the methods of dimensional analysis to simple problems, particularly in mechanics, are made by every student of physics.
...
Note :

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
 
Old February 25th, 2013 #159
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

It's exhilarating to see the chosen have their asses handed to them by a Goy! Way to go Ryan!
 
Old February 25th, 2013 #160
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,739
Default

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.
 
Reply

Tags
albert einstein, einstein, fraud, jew fraud, jew fraud einstein, jew lies, physics

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:19 AM.
Page generated in 0.33284 seconds.