iamveryangry's forum posts

  • 24 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for iamveryangry
iamveryangry

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 iamveryangry
Member since 2011 • 25 Posts

[QUOTE="xaos"]But the two statements are just two sloppy verbalizations of F = maCaveJohnson1

Gonna go with this, the way he worded it he made it sound like he was implying gravity had no units.

I dunno why you'd think that. Is it because you associate 'ratio' with unitless quantities?
Avatar image for iamveryangry
iamveryangry

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 iamveryangry
Member since 2011 • 25 Posts

[QUOTE="Nude_Dude"]

(in all fairness, inertial and gravitational mass is not always one and the same)

Now I don't really know how you can 'change inertia', but assuming no other force comes to play, and friction continues to act on it, it will eventually stop. Increase inertia to a hypothetical infinity, and I assume it travels an infinite amount of length before stopping.

Changing the mass, however, is not really gonna cut it. If high school knowledge doesn't fail me, friction in a moving object is proportional to its' mass.

CaveJohnson1

Hmmmm, bolded term doesn't make sense.

It does make sense. Gravitational mass is defined as the ratio of the gravitational force on an object to the gravitational field strength; inertial mass is the ratio of the net force on an object to its acceleration. The two quantities of course seem to be equal in all cases, although the reason why is not clear.
Avatar image for iamveryangry
iamveryangry

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 iamveryangry
Member since 2011 • 25 Posts
[QUOTE="iamveryangry"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] [QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]If you don't understand the reality of absolute relativism re: Relativity...Frame_Dragger
lol k What particularly confuses me is that you seem to genuinely have a fairly okay knowledge of the - ahem - 'psychics' you're talking nonsense about (ignoring the fact that you seem to have had to look up the spacetime interval on Wikipedia).

So I have a fair knowledge of the physics, but I need to look up spacetime interval on Wikipedia. The latter would utterly contradict the former, and I'm noticing that you've offered nothing here. Other than flaming and aspiring to trolling, do you have anything to offer? I have to say, I'm literally lolling as someone who does no more than claim an interest in a field of physics goes on to make a number of presumptions in an insulting fashion. Your rhetoric isn't impressive, and you've shown no ability to understand or demonstrate principles of your "favorite science". You also glossed over your pure ignorance of Moral Relativism... so I guess philosophy is not your thing either. :roll: No wonder you're angry... you must get your rhetorical butt handed to you constantly. Tell me, this new account of your's... is it a proxy or just another in a long line of failed identities you want to establish? @cheezisgoooood: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism (and a little fodder for iamveryangry). Look, I understand that in your opinion, this is a binary issue. I disagree, but you seem to be leaving it at the level of opinion, and you're not making any effort to so much as google a word like apatheism. I'll debate this with you, but, it SEEMS like you're expressing an opinion, not pressing a point. I have no desire to attack your personal view of things, so which is it?

Well, no. I don't think they contradict each other. You seem to have sort of an 'educated layman' level of understanding of it, and I don't think that means you have to know about the spacetime interval. Anyway. What makes you think I SHOULD demonstrating my understanding of relativitistic physics? This isn't a test. All I wished to point out was my annoyance at you abusing relativity to support your worldview like some idiot cocktail-party philosopher. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to watch Breaking Bad :3
Avatar image for iamveryangry
iamveryangry

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 iamveryangry
Member since 2011 • 25 Posts
I wasn't in any way using Relativity to support my philosophical beliefFrame_Dragger
If you don't understand the reality of absolute relativism re: Relativity...Frame_Dragger
lol k What particularly confuses me is that you seem to genuinely have a fairly okay knowledge of the - ahem - 'psychics' you're talking nonsense about (ignoring the fact that you seem to have had to look up the spacetime interval on Wikipedia).
Avatar image for iamveryangry
iamveryangry

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 iamveryangry
Member since 2011 • 25 Posts
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] I really have to say, I think a careful study of SR/GR is practically necessary before someone can begin to explore philosophy. If you don't understand the reality of absolute relativism re: Relativity, you run into Mr. Harris' brand of semantic crap.

Ugh. Relativity does not imply relativism, and it does not imply that there are no facts which are not dependent on reference frame (for example, the spacetime interval). The insight that 'stuff looks different depending on how you look at it' is obvious to everyone and always has been. Now kindly stop abusing my favourite area of physics in order to support your silly philosophical beliefs u_u
Avatar image for iamveryangry
iamveryangry

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 iamveryangry
Member since 2011 • 25 Posts
but why were humans born on a planet that SUPPORTS its life so well, as opposed to Jupiter, or any other planet that could not support life?kussese
Wait. Wait. People actually think this way? Good lord.
Avatar image for iamveryangry
iamveryangry

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 iamveryangry
Member since 2011 • 25 Posts
What I don't understand is the inflation model. Where it is believed that the universe went from atomic size, to cosmoligical size in less than a second. So wouldn't that mean that matter would have to been travelling faster than the speed of light?chaoscougar1
Even today, distant galaxies have a velocity relative to us which is greater than the speed of light. It's 'allowed' because it's really just space expanding.
Avatar image for iamveryangry
iamveryangry

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 iamveryangry
Member since 2011 • 25 Posts
When they can fly at speeds that can hardly be measured and turn at hard angles literally on a dime while going at those speeds, yeah.. it kind of has to be aliens. Especially when the craft are sometimes oh.. a mile across.hartsickdiscipl
It's funny because it's physically impossible
Avatar image for iamveryangry
iamveryangry

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 iamveryangry
Member since 2011 • 25 Posts
[QUOTE="iamveryangry"][QUOTE="Overlord93"]Dependent on whether or not there is any noticeable increase in HIV between gay men and straight men.th3warr1or
There is, but the increase in risk to the person recieving the transfusion is so negligible that if the ban were lifted, thousands of lives would be saved for every extra HIV infection that slipped through the net.

Would you want to be the guy that happened to have the one that slipped through the net?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You don't think thousands of people saved who would otherwise have died as a result of being given stale blood are worth a single extra HIV infection?
Avatar image for iamveryangry
iamveryangry

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 iamveryangry
Member since 2011 • 25 Posts
[QUOTE="markop2003"] Thousands? I think you're missing how few guys would have been openly gay in the 80s, remember that their only way of telling if you're gay is if you tell the nurse.

The numbers add up that way pretty much irrespective of how many gay men flout the ban by lying about when they last had sex.
  • 24 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3