It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Originally posted by PurpleChiten
I seriously doubt he is better qualified than I am.
Would you like to take a bet on that?
He's upset because I put it into terms that someone without a science background could understand
He doesn't seem upset, just attempting to correct your inaccurate description. Something you've made no effort to defend - instead you just wave your hands about and tell him to "go to night classes".
Why don't you address the points he laid out clearly a few posts above - the ones labelled a to c.
I have actual degrees in both Mathematics and in Physics
So you keep saying.
edit on 27/5/12 by FatherLukeDuke because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Yes, I would be willing to bet on that.
No, he wants to nitpick my explanation to a layperson on a scientific level when it wasn't a scientific explanation.
He's trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. The explanation I gave was to someone who didn't have a science background and needed assistance in grasping a concept without all the scientific data attached to it, so I gave it to them. Now this little fella comes along and throws a fit because I didn't give a long, dry, boring explanation
And yes, I absolutely do have degrees in Math and Physics
which can be verified by the moderator SunflowerStar who knows me personally and has known me for many, MANY years.
Originally posted by PurpleChiten
No, he wants to nitpick my explanation to a layperson on a scientific level when it wasn't a scientific explanation. He's trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. The explanation I gave was to someone who didn't have a science background and needed assistance in grasping a concept without all the scientific data attached to it, so I gave it to them.
Now this little fella comes along and throws a fit because I didn't give a long, dry, boring explanation using scientific vernacular.
Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
It was an explanation of science, but not a scientific explanation? You appear as if you just can't admit that your explanation was wrong, in layman's terms or any other.
Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by PurpleChiten
It will not matter, folks 'round these parts don't read past a the first page most of the time.
Or at least they read until the post they quote...
Lastly, it won't matter because it doesn't support the "magic". Look what happened when I questioned where the "magic" was coming from. And you are suggesting the "magic" itself isn't real.
Also, I thought that the equations would work if enough power/energy was pumpped into them?
(Not that we are capable of producing enough, but that there is in fact a way to get it to funcion.)
good points..
As far as the equations and the energy, we have to remember that there's a limit to the amount of energy that can be used. Theoretical limits are one thing, physical limits are another. You can think of it like terminal velocity. Even though gravity is still exerting an accelerating force, the bouyancy balances it out and a maximum speed is attained due to the other forces acting on the body. With more and more energy pumped into it, other forces come into play that weren't making a difference before, but could make a difference after a certain point. Those weren't really considered by the fella.
When the velocity approaches the speed of light, the molecular forces then come into play when they weren't in play before hand because the mass desires a change to alot for the energy, but the atoms don't want to change so a new battleground is set up and that decreases the velocity or resists changes in the velocity...
It's kind of like your appliances. There is enough electricity flowing through the lines to power a lot of appliances, but you only have a few. It doesn't mean those appliances are going to use every bit of electrical power in the lines, they use what they need to perform the function they are carrying out. The rest of the energy is still there and can be used by other appliances, but it doesn't have to be used.
Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by PurpleChiten
It will not matter, folks 'round these parts don't read past a the first page most of the time.
Or at least they read until the post they quote...
Lastly, it won't matter because it doesn't support the "magic". Look what happened when I questioned where the "magic" was coming from. And you are suggesting the "magic" itself isn't real.
Also, I thought that the equations would work if enough power/energy was pumpped into them?
(Not that we are capable of producing enough, but that there is in fact a way to get it to funcion.)
good points..
As far as the equations and the energy, we have to remember that there's a limit to the amount of energy that can be used. Theoretical limits are one thing, physical limits are another. You can think of it like terminal velocity. Even though gravity is still exerting an accelerating force, the bouyancy balances it out and a maximum speed is attained due to the other forces acting on the body. With more and more energy pumped into it, other forces come into play that weren't making a difference before, but could make a difference after a certain point. Those weren't really considered by the fella.
When the velocity approaches the speed of light, the molecular forces then come into play when they weren't in play before hand because the mass desires a change to alot for the energy, but the atoms don't want to change so a new battleground is set up and that decreases the velocity or resists changes in the velocity...
It's kind of like your appliances. There is enough electricity flowing through the lines to power a lot of appliances, but you only have a few. It doesn't mean those appliances are going to use every bit of electrical power in the lines, they use what they need to perform the function they are carrying out. The rest of the energy is still there and can be used by other appliances, but it doesn't have to be used.
This is the original post and I still stand by it.
It explained what he was asking, in very simplistic terms and none of it was incorrect in what was being explained.
Sometimes, you have to explain basic concepts in basic ways for those without a background in science.
Deal with it and move on.
Originally posted by PurpleChiten
forget it, you're not capable of comprehending, so there's no reason to bother with you any further
Originally posted by anon72
Swirly Energy Thingy
tvtropes.org...
Maybe HHarp was used on a Russian missle? Seems plausable.. if you believe the above thougths of Dr. Fran De. Aquino.
Thoughts?
The physical properties of melting point, boiling point, vapor pressure, evaporation, viscosity, surface tension, and solubility are related to the strength of attractive forces between molecules. These attractive forces are called Intermolecular Forces. The amount of "stick togetherness" is important in the interpretation of the various properties listed above.
There are four types of intermolecular forces. Most of the intermolecular forces are identical to bonding between atoms in a single molecule. Intermolecular forces just extend the thinking to forces between molecules and follows the patterns already set by the bonding within molecules.
Mathematically, terminal velocity—without considering buoyancy effects—is given by the formula....
....
Mathematically, an object approaches its terminal velocity asymptotically.
Buoyancy effects, due to the upward force on the object by the surrounding fluid, can be taken into account using Archimedes' principle: the mass has to be reduced by the displaced fluid mass , with the volume of the object. So instead of use the reduced mass in this and subsequent formulas.
When the buoyancy effects are taken into account, an object falling through a fluid under its own weight can reach a terminal velocity (settling velocity) if the net force acting on the object becomes zero. When the terminal velocity is reached the weight of the object is exactly balanced by the upward buoyancy force and drag force
Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by PurpleChiten
Right. It's not the buoyancy that causes terminal velocity condition, as your link says, it's drag. Thanks for reinforcing my point and admitting that you were wrong.
Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by PurpleChiten
Right. It's not the buoyancy that causes terminal velocity condition, as your link says, it's drag. Thanks for reinforcing my point and admitting that you were wrong.
On the contrary, it clearly states that both affect it, hence buoyancy does affect it.
Oh right, the rest of the world is wrong and you're right. I forgot
Even though gravity is still exerting an accelerating force, the bouyancy balances it out and a maximum speed is attained due to the other forces acting on the body.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by PurpleChiten
Right. It's not the buoyancy that causes terminal velocity condition, as your link says, it's drag. Thanks for reinforcing my point and admitting that you were wrong.
On the contrary, it clearly states that both affect it, hence buoyancy does affect it.
Oh right, the rest of the world is wrong and you're right. I forgot
If there is no buoyancy, there will still be terminal velocity. However, you said this:
Even though gravity is still exerting an accelerating force, the bouyancy balances it out and a maximum speed is attained due to the other forces acting on the body.
The balance is achieved not by buoyancy, but by increasing drag, as the wiki link demonstrated. For a skydiver, the terminal velocity will be also affected by the phase of the moon, but that's not what defines the phenomenon. What a poor way to illustrate physics to someone who in your words doesn't know it! They would be better off if you didn't try.
Then again, according to you "molecular forces" explain relativity. Oh well.
edit on 27-5-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)
Title : INTERMOLECULAR FORCES AND BASIC PROBLEMS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS.
Abstract : A list of publications on two areas of investigation is given: (1) Intermolecular forces and their effects on radiative processes and (2) basic problems in the foundation of quantum mechanics. The first included are studies of the theory of intermolecular forces, the coupling between nuclear and electronic motions in diatomic molecules, the theory of radiative processes in plasmas, and an interpretation of spectroscopy satellites induced by the influence of a foreign gas. The second topic included the formulation of joint probabilities for the measurement of non-commiting observables and the general problem of simultaneous measurability of such observables. A paper on three and four-center molecular integrals is included.
In physics, the Lorentz transformation or Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation describes how, according to the theory of special relativity, different measurements of space and time by two observers can be converted into the measurements observed in either frame of reference.
In early 1889, Heaviside had shown from Maxwell's equations that the electric field surrounding a spherical distribution of charge should cease to have spherical symmetry once the charge is in motion relative to the ether. FitzGerald then conjectured that Heaviside’s distortion result might be applied to a theory of intermolecular forces.
One of the most astounding consequences of Einstein's clock-setting method is the idea that time is relative. In essence, each observer's frame of reference is associated with a unique set of clocks, the result being that time passes at different rates for different observers.[22] This was a direct result of the Lorentz transformations and is called time dilation. We can also clearly see from the Lorentz "local time" transformation that the concept of the relativity of simultaneity and of the relativity of length contraction are also consequences of that clock-setting hypothesis.