0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Fl=mc˛added model -1kg at ''c'' >>>>>>>>>>>impact force maximum limit<<<<<<<<<<<1kg at ''c''
Quote from: TheboxFl=mc˛added model -1kg at ''c'' >>>>>>>>>>>impact force maximum limit<<<<<<<<<<<1kg at ''c''None of that makes any sense. TB - Please listen to what I'm about to write and always remember it because its the most important thing you'll ever need to know when writing about physics. When you write down and equation you need to state what its all about. Merely writing down a mathematical expression means nothing to us. For example; you wrote Fl=mc˛. If instead you wrote E = mc˛ and didn't say anything then its typical to assume that everyone knows what it is due to the popularity of the expression. But when you write Fl=mc˛ all bets are off because we don't know what FI is and as such the right hand side can't b e assumed to mean anything. If it is supposed to be energy then why didn't you write down E = Fl. In any case we don't know what F is and we don't know what l is. You have to define your terms. Then when you said "added model -" again this is meaningless as is what followed that.Please explain step by step what it all meant and even more important, at least for me, explain why you think that everyone would know what you meant by it all?
My title explains what Fl means, force limit .
I am simply saying that mc˛ does not equal energy it equals force.
If I recall correctly E=mc˛ explained in relativity shows a single Photon making surface contact at ''c'' with the sides of a box. The force of impact accelerates the box.
You really need to understand dimensional analysis before proposing or discussing any physical principle. ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN is a neat summary that will introduce you to the way big boys talk about science.
That's incorrect. In Einstein's first derivation he had a object emit radiation of equal amounts in opposite directions in the rest frame of the object. The object had to remain at rest in that frame otherwise momentum wouldn't be conserved. In any case that is merely one way to arrive at that expression. There are plenty of other ways.
Because the fact is that ''dimensions'' are arbitrary , a shape is simply what we want to call it, but it is not meaningful.And sorry Alan i do not know where that came from relevant to thread.
Thank you for the great link Alan, can you tell me please what is the dimension of space itself ?
any answer to the second one of finite, I will assume a flat earth theory.
Dimensional analysisIn engineering and science, dimensional analysis is the analysis of the relationships between different physical quantities by identifying their fundamental dimensions (such as length, mass, time, and electric charge) and units of measure (such as miles vs. kilometers, or pounds vs. kilograms vs. grams) and tracking these dimensions as calculations or comparisons are performed. Converting from one dimensional unit to another is often somewhat complex.
And sorry Alan i do not know where that came from relevant to thread.
Quote from: TheboxThank you for the great link Alan, can you tell me please what is the dimension of space itself ?You're kidding, right? Everyone knows that the dimension of space is 3. Do you know why? It's because it takes exactly three numbers to specify where a point is in space.Quote from: Theboxany answer to the second one of finite, I will assume a flat earth theory. You're quite wrong on that. You don't seem to know that there are two different meanings of the term dimension. See:...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGINQuoteDimensional analysisIn engineering and science, dimensional analysis is the analysis of the relationships between different physical quantities by identifying their fundamental dimensions (such as length, mass, time, and electric charge) and units of measure (such as miles vs. kilometers, or pounds vs. kilograms vs. grams) and tracking these dimensions as calculations or comparisons are performed. Converting from one dimensional unit to another is often somewhat complex. Let's do a dimensional analysis on Newton's second law, i.e. F = ma. Force has dimensions of Nektons where 1 Newton is defined as 1 kg*m/s2. This follows from the following facts: Mass has units of kilograms, which we express as [kg]. Acceleration has units of meters per second squared, which we express as [m/s2 it therefore follows thatF = ma = [kg][m/s2]That's what dimensional analysis is all about.Quote from: TheboxAnd sorry Alan i do not know where that came from relevant to thread.It came from the fact that Fl = mc2 is dimensionally incorrect. The left side has dimensions of Newton's, i.e. kg*m/s2, whereas the right hand side has dimensions of mass times velocity squared over time squared, i.e. [kg][m2]/[s2. Your equation therefore readskg*m/s2 = [kg][m2]/[s2]which is incorrect. Then again you never really defined what Fl = "force limit" is supposed to mean. Somehow, somewhere you got the idea that you can write down math equations and have them mean something. In your case you wrote 1kg at ''c'' >>>>>>>>>>>impact force maximum limit<<<<<<<<<<<1kg at ''c''The statement 1kg at ''c'' has no meaning. And there is no such thing as "impact force maximum limit". There is no bound of the magnitude of any force. What is it that you claim that the dimensions of "Fl" are?What really bothers me about the threads that you've been starting lately is that it makes it appear as if you've fallen back into your old routine. I really thought that we were making progress with you but I can see how wrong I was. Not only are you full of yourself but you appear to be grabbing symbols or formulas at random and combining them with total lack of logic as you have done here. There is a complete lack of logic in your posts. E.g. QuoteFl=mc˛added model -1kg at ''c'' >>>>>>>>>>>impact force maximum limit<<<<<<<<<<<1kg at ''c''has no meaning whatsoever. I'm very very disturbed by the way you're sliding back to your old ways.
I am not slipping into any ways, I have not changed from day one, I am practising and your answers always learn me new things. I am getting better and better by learning more. ........., m=E,
Energy has nothing to do with speed ....
Energy is not related to force,...
... energy is a product of force....
... energy is in space ....
, a single particle in void still has energy, m=E,
Energy has nothing to do with speed, energy exists without speed so c is irrelevant.
And also not a single science forum has explained what E=mc˛ is even relevant to, in nuclear process the deuterium reacts with the plutonium producing E. E=reaction no speed involved.
My ears are not death . I listen and learn, I am objective, but if science isn't making sense to me, then there is simply something up with it.
d= ∞ from any dependent observation...
When PmbPhy says you are slipping into your old ways, he probably means this stringing together of irrational groups of formula and concepts resulting in meaningless and incomprehensible posts.
Quote from: Colin2B When PmbPhy says you are slipping into your old ways, he probably means this stringing together of irrational groups of formula and concepts resulting in meaningless and incomprehensible posts.Yup. That's exactly what I meant.
I am simply writing the expressions instead of words, and expressing it as I see it.
Distance is an infinite measurementd=∞
Quote from: TheboxI am simply writing the expressions instead of words, and expressing it as I see it.See it from where? Let me explain this yet once again. Although I don't know why you'd listen to me this time when you haven't yet. Without giving both at the same time you end up posting things that can't be understood by anybody except you.So why don't you explain to us what it is that you're seeing when you say "as I see it"?Quote from: TheboxDistance is an infinite measurementd=∞See? This is yet another example of nonsense. First of all you didn't say what this distance means. Is it the distance between the Earth and the Moon? The distance from Boston to Tucson? From here to the Andromeda Galaxy? What? In the second place why do you keep doing something that I keep telling you is meaningless? You simply CANNOT meaningfully assign ∞ to a variable such as the "distance d"? There's no such thing as "distance is an infinite measure." Where do you get this crap from? When are you going to start listening to us and start posting something meaningful?By the way. I've given you PLENTY of time to get with it and start sending me a statement of what you were able to do each day as far as your reading assignments. Not only have you not done that but you've completely failed to even acknowledge that I gave you that assignment. I've made every effort so far to work with you and you've failed at all of them. Therefore your suspension from my forum is now changed to you being banned.
I visualise everything now including maths representing something, and replacing words with maths.
distance is the space between two points..
... but distance is also the infinite space with no points ...
that a measurement of would just keep going and going for infinite space-time. hence d=infinite
Banned, my apologies Pete, I need to interact.
You didn't respond to that PM but I'm holding you to it. I haven't received anything from you since that date and that's not a good sign. It tells me that you're not taking me seriously. Therefore I suspended you. The suspension will only last until you finish this assignment and you can figure out how you'll be able to fit your classwork into your life. Then I'll lift the suspension and we'll pick up where we left off. meanwhile there's no reason why you can't learn the same way we're doing here and ask questions in e-mail or in the TNS forum.