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
06-07-2013, 11:26 AM
Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
Remember that long ass list of racist quotes from Israeli politicians I posted.....oh wait let me guess " that's not evidence that Israeli politicians are racist pieces of shit that need to sleep with the fish."

When and how is Israel a democracy?

Why are you not an atheist? Why do you like religious fascist nut jobs?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2013, 11:34 AM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
Why do you have such a bad haircut?
That's the real question here.

[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
06-07-2013, 11:36 AM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
(06-07-2013 11:26 AM)I and I Wrote:  Remember that long ass list of racist quotes from Israeli politicians I posted.....oh wait let me guess " that's not evidence that Israeli politicians are racist pieces of shit that need to sleep with the fish."

Most of them aren't politicians, and most them are dead. So there's that.

(06-07-2013 11:26 AM)I and I Wrote:  When and how is Israel a democracy?
I suppose internationally recognized free and fair elections don't count for you?

(06-07-2013 11:26 AM)I and I Wrote:  Why are you not an atheist? Why do you like religious fascist nut jobs?

And, see, this bit is just nonsensical.

Are you even trying?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2013, 11:41 AM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
This thread is up to the brim of full retard.

I&I, I think you broke your own record in here.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
06-07-2013, 01:15 PM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
(06-07-2013 11:26 AM)I and I Wrote:  Remember that long ass list of racist quotes from Israeli politicians I posted.....oh wait let me guess " that's not evidence that Israeli politicians are racist pieces of shit that need to sleep with the fish."

When and how is Israel a democracy?

Why are you not an atheist? Why do you like religious fascist nut jobs?

CUCKOO FOR COCOA PUFFS!!!! CUCKOO FOR COCOA PUFFS!!!!!

"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
07-07-2013, 12:03 AM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
I&I let me recap your argument so far, so that you can review for yourself whether you have constructed a compelling case.

You started with (I'm having to infer some of this because you haven't actually straight out said any of it):
1. Fa = Fb, where Fa is the force object (a) applies to object (b) and Fb is the force (b) applies to object (a) - aka Newton's third law
2. There were no plane parts strewn about at the impact site at the world trade centre after 2011-09-11.
Therefore:
3. There were no plane impacts at the world trade centre on the date of 2011-09-11 (? or there were but it was an inside job or something...?)

This was rebutted in a number of ways:
1. Several people pointed out that the balancing of forces when two objects interact is not the most important principle and is certainly in no way a complete description of what kind of debris field we might expect to result from a high kinetic energy collision. Conservation of momentum (a consequence of the first and second laws) is a key consideration. You really need to look at Kinematics[1] as a whole here, and also consider the disintegration and deformation of the objects involved in the collision.
2. Several people pointed out that there were plane paths strewn around the impact site, and these these parts are of a size and level of deformation consistent with disintegration under high speed impact conditions.

In other words: The third law of motion describes how rockets are able to accelerate spacecraft, but has relatively little impact on the way debris fields are described so point (1) is not relevant to the conclusion. Additionally, point (2) is false as small parts were found. Therefore, the conclusion is not supported by the argument in its current form.

In response you clarified your argument thusly:
1. Some Israeli politicians have said racist things
Therefore
2. Israel is not a democracy
Moreover
3. Some people here take a neutral stance on Israel, accepting that some the country has good and bad properties
Therefore:
4. Those people are not atheists
Or... that's as close as I can get to following your reasoning.

I find that if I'm having trouble convincing someone of something or having trouble of explaining something, putting it in the form of a syllogism like I have loosely done for some of your posts above can be a helpful communication tool. Using a structured form like this helps me to clarify my thoughts both to myself and to others.

Can you maybe come back to the argument(s) you are trying to make and put them in a structured form like this? Perhaps it would help fill in some of the gaps that seem to be present.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinematics
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

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
[+] 3 users Like Hafnof's post
07-07-2013, 01:43 AM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
(07-07-2013 12:03 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I&I let me recap your argument so far, so that you can review for yourself whether you have constructed a compelling case.

You started with (I'm having to infer some of this because you haven't actually straight out said any of it):
1. Fa = Fb, where Fa is the force object (a) applies to object (b) and Fb is the force (b) applies to object (a) - aka Newton's third law
2. There were no plane parts strewn about at the impact site at the world trade centre after 2011-09-11.
Therefore:
3. There were no plane impacts at the world trade centre on the date of 2011-09-11 (? or there were but it was an inside job or something...?)

This was rebutted in a number of ways:
1. Several people pointed out that the balancing of forces when two objects interact is not the most important principle and is certainly in no way a complete description of what kind of debris field we might expect to result from a high kinetic energy collision. Conservation of momentum (a consequence of the first and second laws) is a key consideration. You really need to look at Kinematics[1] as a whole here, and also consider the disintegration and deformation of the objects involved in the collision.
2. Several people pointed out that there were plane paths strewn around the impact site, and these these parts are of a size and level of deformation consistent with disintegration under high speed impact conditions.

In other words: The third law of motion describes how rockets are able to accelerate spacecraft, but has relatively little impact on the way debris fields are described so point (1) is not relevant to the conclusion. Additionally, point (2) is false as small parts were found. Therefore, the conclusion is not supported by the argument in its current form.

In response you clarified your argument thusly:
1. Some Israeli politicians have said racist things
Therefore
2. Israel is not a democracy
Moreover
3. Some people here take a neutral stance on Israel, accepting that some the country has good and bad properties
Therefore:
4. Those people are not atheists
Or... that's as close as I can get to following your reasoning.

I find that if I'm having trouble convincing someone of something or having trouble of explaining something, putting it in the form of a syllogism like I have loosely done for some of your posts above can be a helpful communication tool. Using a structured form like this helps me to clarify my thoughts both to myself and to others.

Can you maybe come back to the argument(s) you are trying to make and put them in a structured form like this? Perhaps it would help fill in some of the gaps that seem to be present.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinematics
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

Nobody said that Israel isn't a democracy BECAUSE israeli politicians have said racist and fascist things. They are 2 facts, that were causally put together in your assumption of what I was saying.

Post a video of the plane hitting the building on 9-11 and post the time frame in the video when you see any plane pieces break off or even become damaged by the impact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2013, 02:58 AM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
Both are assertions. Once is credible while the other has no merit I'm aware of.

So we are back to discussing 9/11? You're issuing a challenge. This makes me think that you accept your original argument has no merit as you are not prepared to clarify it or defend it.

In response to the challenge: Do you understand that things break apart at the point of collision, or at a distance no greater than the speed of sound allows the shockwave to travel? As the impact was with the building and both building and aircraft deformed at the point of impact, it's plain that the bulk of the impact would have occurred within the perimeter of the building as part of the disintegrating aircraft impacted various internal features of the tower in each case. Perhaps this would be again clearer if you followed a clear formula:
1. I expect xxxx because I have calculated that to be the behaviour based on specific known laws of physics or otherwise believe and am willing to have clarified based on known physics.
2. I observed yyyy
3. xxxx and yyyy are different in way zzzz

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
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
08-07-2013, 01:28 PM
Re: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
According to I and I's laws of physics, if you fired a bullet into a car door you should expect to find chunks and pieces of the bullet *in front of* the car door.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
08-07-2013, 01:34 PM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
(08-07-2013 01:28 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  According to I and I's laws of physics, if you fired a bullet into a car door you should expect to find chunks and pieces of the bullet *in front of* the car door.

Or, if you throw a baseball through a window, then pieces of the baseball should be thrown backwards towards the pitcher.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: