Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-07-2013, 09:18 PM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
(02-07-2013 03:06 PM)I and I Wrote:  Hey stupid fucking fucks

The woo woo right wing pretend atheist Uncle Sam cock sucking stupid fucks that make of the majority of this site are now fucking saying like Chas explicitly said, two opposing objects crashing into one another should make them disintegrate completely? Not crash into pieces and be strewn about but shoud disintegrate completely. Tell me how this is physically possible with regards to chunks of metal being slammed Into one another.


It's not even possible to figure out what I & I is arguing.

According to I&I's Laws, if someone tosses a dart at a cork board, we should expect to always find a debris field of dart pieces strewn about the bar floor. This is because in the world of I&I, it is not possible for anything to be stopped by embedding into other objects which can absorb impacts through deformation of both the impacting and impacted objects.

By the way, I&I, one analyses a debris field of a collision using the concept of conservation of momentum. Yes, the laws of conservation of momentum are consistent with and derivable through the combination of the 2nd and 3rd Newtons' Laws of motion. However this is not primarily a Newton's Third Law question. And conservation of momentum has proven itself to be a fundamental concept even outside of Newtonian mechanics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like BryanS's post
03-07-2013, 12:57 AM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
Alled-cay it-ay. :offee-cay:
Orta-say...

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2013, 07:55 AM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
(03-07-2013 12:57 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Alled-cay it-ay. :offee-cay:
Orta-say...

Enough, eh?Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2013, 08:26 AM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
(03-07-2013 07:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-07-2013 12:57 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Alled-cay it-ay. :offee-cay:
Orta-say...

Enough, eh?Consider

ay-whay?

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2013, 07:46 PM
Re: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
Can't we just ban this mouthbreathing ignoramus already?

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2013, 04:53 AM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
I&I, you seem to be not stating a few steps in your reasoning and missing some citations.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2013, 07:33 AM
Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
(02-07-2013 09:18 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(02-07-2013 03:06 PM)I and I Wrote:  Hey stupid fucking fucks

The woo woo right wing pretend atheist Uncle Sam cock sucking stupid fucks that make of the majority of this site are now fucking saying like Chas explicitly said, two opposing objects crashing into one another should make them disintegrate completely? Not crash into pieces and be strewn about but shoud disintegrate completely. Tell me how this is physically possible with regards to chunks of metal being slammed Into one another.


It's not even possible to figure out what I & I is arguing.

According to I&I's Laws, if someone tosses a dart at a cork board, we should expect to always find a debris field of dart pieces strewn about the bar floor. This is because in the world of I&I, it is not possible for anything to be stopped by embedding into other objects which can absorb impacts through deformation of both the impacting and impacted objects.

By the way, I&I, one analyses a debris field of a collision using the concept of conservation of momentum. Yes, the laws of conservation of momentum are consistent with and derivable through the combination of the 2nd and 3rd Newtons' Laws of motion. However this is not primarily a Newton's Third Law question. And conservation of momentum has proven itself to be a fundamental concept even outside of Newtonian mechanics.

Nope, according to physics an object like a car being hurled into a building at high speeds would result in forces breaking apart the car and the part of the building it hit and debris would be scattered about.

The car would not melt into or morph into or disappear into a building. There would be an impact and the above would happen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2013, 09:04 AM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2013 10:02 AM by Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver.)
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
(05-07-2013 07:33 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(02-07-2013 09:18 PM)BryanS Wrote:  It's not even possible to figure out what I & I is arguing.

According to I&I's Laws, if someone tosses a dart at a cork board, we should expect to always find a debris field of dart pieces strewn about the bar floor. This is because in the world of I&I, it is not possible for anything to be stopped by embedding into other objects which can absorb impacts through deformation of both the impacting and impacted objects.

By the way, I&I, one analyses a debris field of a collision using the concept of conservation of momentum. Yes, the laws of conservation of momentum are consistent with and derivable through the combination of the 2nd and 3rd Newtons' Laws of motion. However this is not primarily a Newton's Third Law question. And conservation of momentum has proven itself to be a fundamental concept even outside of Newtonian mechanics.

Nope, according to physics an object like a car being hurled into a building at high speeds would result in forces breaking apart the car and the part of the building it hit and debris would be scattered about.

The car would not melt into or morph into or disappear into a building. There would be an impact and the above would happen.

FALSE.

1) This has absolutely nothing to do with Newton's Third Law (which concerns things like jet engines or the felt recoil from a rifle, etc.)

2) Conservation of Momentum comes into play here, but so does conservation of energy. High Speed impacts can disintegrate objects, since the sheer amount of energy can change the state of matter into a liquid or gas instantaneously. Only small chunks of the original vehicle will remain, as the Mythbusters demonstrate by using a 700 mph rocket sled on an unfortunate derelict Geo Metro.





This is typical pussyfooting around by I and I, which, I'm guessing is his proof that commercial airliners did not crash into the WTC or the Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001.

Assumptions: Airplanes supposedly flew into the WTC, but I've seen airplane crashes on TV and in print, like this one from Tennerreif, Canary Islands, from 1977 where a 747 T-Boned another 747 on the runway.

[Image: tenerife_im4.jpg]

This wreck left large, recognizable pieces of the accident aircraft strewn about. This was not so at 9/11.

Therefore hijacked jetliners did NOT fly into the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11.

Here's the problem. This and similar aircraft accidents took place at low speeds (approx 160 mph) which are (relatively) low energy impacts. The 9/11 hijacked jetliners hit the buildings at around 380 knots (437 mph).

Since the kinetic energy of the impact Ek = 0.5*(mass)*(velocity)^2

A 450 mph impact delivers no less than 9 times the amount of energy as does a 150 mph impact.

As an example, here is the fatal crash of a P-51 Mustang at the Reno Air Races in 2012. Impact speed was determined to be ~480 mph. Note most of the aircraft is vaporized and only a few tertiary pieces remain intact.





You will also note that we actually DID recover small parts and pieces of the hijacked jetliners.




"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
05-07-2013, 09:05 AM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
(05-07-2013 07:33 AM)I and I Wrote:  Nope, according to physics an object like a car being hurled into a building at high speeds would result in forces breaking apart the car and the part of the building it hit and debris would be scattered about.

The car would not melt into or morph into or disappear into a building. There would be an impact and the above would happen.
Really?

Which physics?

I never learned anything about those physics.

Of course, this is coming from a guy who thought an unmanned aircraft in 9/2001 was a conspiracy theory, when in fact unmanned aircraft had been around since 1918.

[Image: 21omssh.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2013, 09:06 AM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
(05-07-2013 07:33 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(02-07-2013 09:18 PM)BryanS Wrote:  It's not even possible to figure out what I & I is arguing.

According to I&I's Laws, if someone tosses a dart at a cork board, we should expect to always find a debris field of dart pieces strewn about the bar floor. This is because in the world of I&I, it is not possible for anything to be stopped by embedding into other objects which can absorb impacts through deformation of both the impacting and impacted objects.

By the way, I&I, one analyses a debris field of a collision using the concept of conservation of momentum. Yes, the laws of conservation of momentum are consistent with and derivable through the combination of the 2nd and 3rd Newtons' Laws of motion. However this is not primarily a Newton's Third Law question. And conservation of momentum has proven itself to be a fundamental concept even outside of Newtonian mechanics.

Nope, according to physics an object like a car being hurled into a building at high speeds would result in forces breaking apart the car and the part of the building it hit and debris would be scattered about.

The car would not melt into or morph into or disappear into a building. There would be an impact and the above would happen.

Actually it would depend on the materials.
If we're talking about some African straw hut house v an abrams tank, I suspect that yes there will be debre flying everywhere, but it wont be from the tank...
Drinking Beverage

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: