Where were you on 9/11

tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
reddan1981 said:
So you UNDERSTAND Newton's law?
"If an object A exterts a force on object B, then object B exerts an equal but opposite force on object A" -> F 1 =−F 2

Considering that, why is there motion at all? Should not all forces even themselves out, so nothing moves at all?
Click to expand...
Here is a page with easy to understand answers to your question, I'm surprised you didn't find it as a cursory google search gave me the result immediately - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45653/with-newtons-third-law-why-are-things-capable-of-moving
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
reddan1981 said:
It was my understanding the the Third Law was a necessary consequence of the homogeneity of space, and conservation of momentum.

Second, what would an example be of a non-relativistic, familiar example be of a force that does not follow the Third Law. Am I correct in understanding that drag would not necessarily follow the Third Law, because the magnitude of the force is velocity-dependent? Maybe I should talk in a more elementary tone, so you understand? Where does the opposing FORCE come from when leaving our atmosphere or the moons surface?
Click to expand...
The opposing force comes from the rocket's own fuel. Again, google saves the day - http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space

RIU's Science & Technology sub-forum is a great place to ask these questions. There are some real heavies over there that may be open to teaching you some basics and beyond if you can be respectful and drop the attitude. Otherwise, they'll eat you for lunch. I hope my information on search engines and our own science sub-forum was helpful. This instance was free, but in the future I may invoice you for my time ;)
 
Metasynth

Metasynth

Well-Known Member
Had just woken up to go to school, I was a senior in HS, about to turn 19 in a couple months...walked upstairs and saw the TV on...The first plane had already hit, and as I sat down to see what was going on, we watched the second plane hit the other tower, live. I vividly remember the newscaster saying"Oh fuck...holy shit...on no!", and nothing got bleeped out.

Then I remember seeing people jump out of the towers above the burning floors. Then the cameraman panned away out of respect for the people plummeting to their death.
 
reddan1981

reddan1981

Well-Known Member
Tyler durden you are making a point to point me to google. You do know that newton never finished his equation? His laws are contradictory to Kepler. MANY scientific minds, greater than yours or mine, dispute his work. I could rip your knowledge apart, however it is not my game to insult, I simply want AMERICANS to understand the indoctrination they have endured. It is easier to fool someone, than to convince them they've been fooled-
Save your sly insults Tyler, you will not prove your intellectual prowess to me by using a BIASED source of reference. Oligarchy means exactly what, in your educated mind?
 
Last edited:
reddan1981

reddan1981

Well-Known Member
tyler.durden said:
You seem confused on more than one level. I'm quite sure that SM's dick remark was aimed at me (lovingly). You are mean, and don't seem to play well with others...
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, broken sleep and five children under 5yrs. I take umbrage with persons that assume intelligence over another. What if my main project was to test response to questions against belief systems? How would you say you responded, courteously? Or with pseudo quips against my understanding and intelligence? The proof you provide is enough to make YOU believe, without even understanding.
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
reddan1981 said:
Tyler durden you are making a point to point me to google.
Click to expand...
Right...

You do know that newton never finished his equation?
Click to expand...
Which equation are you referring to, and how is it incomplete?

His laws are contradictory to Kepler.
Click to expand...
Which of his laws contradict Kepler's? I know he improved on the ground work Kepler laid. It is generally believed that Newton's work was an improvement on Kepler's because it -

1) Demonstrated a relationship between objects in terms of a generalized fundamental force
2) Resulted in a far more versatile mathematical expression which was able to account for and explain the affects in multi-body systems rather than serve as an approximation assuming a 2 body system.
3) Provided and utilized generalized tools that were applicable not just to more orbital mechanics problems but also physical mechanics problems in general.

MANY scientific minds, greater than yours or mine, dispute his work.
Click to expand...
Please post the names of a few of these great scientific minds that dispute Newton's work, and their specific points of contention. Newton was arguably the greatest scientific mind ever to grace this planet. Of course, our knowledge at any given time is incomplete, and many great minds have supplanted much of his knowledge with superior theory. Like Einstein with special and general relativity and Heisenberg, Plank and Bohr with quantum mechanics. I don't know if I'd call these improvements disputes, necessarily...

I could rip your knowledge apart, however it is not my game to insult, I simply want AMERICANS to understand the indoctrination they have endured.
Click to expand...
For all your outlandish claims, I have yet to see any credible source support your views. Please, share as many links as you'd like from credible/peer reviewed sources to back up your claims...

It is easier to fool someone, than to convince them they've been fooled
Click to expand...
It seems even easier to fool oneself...

Save your sly insults Tyler, you will not prove your intellectual prowess to me by using a BIASED source of reference. Oligarchy means exactly what, in your educated mind?
Click to expand...
How is my source biased?



Personally, I've seen plenty of guys like you in S&S&P over the years. You're a great example of knowing just enough to be dangerous. You seem attracted to the idea that somehow we're all sheep following the mainstream, and you have secret knowledge of what's really going on. No credible or empirical evidence, just erroneous sources consisting of truly whacky conspiracy sites and specious YT vids. You've learned enough to ask basic questions, but you seem to refuse to take the next step of searching for credible, well-established answers. I really don't think you want to learn about objective reality, I think that you like thinking you know better. You seem emotionally invested in this delusion, that seems childish and desperate to me. Like I've said before, you're obviously intelligent. I hope you are able to drop the nonsense so you can improve your critical thinking skills and choose sources that will bring you closer to learning about objective reality. I think you'll find it more interesting than your current path...

P.S. My invoice is in your inbox ;)
 
Last edited:
reddan1981

reddan1981

Well-Known Member
tyler.durden said:
Right...



Which equation are you referring to, and how is it incomplete?



Which of his laws contradict Kepler's? I know he improved on the ground work Kepler laid. It is generally believed that Newton's work was an improvement on Kepler's because it -

1) Demonstrated a relationship between objects in terms of a generalized fundamental force
2) Resulted in a far more versatile mathematical expression which was able to account for and explain the affects in multi-body systems rather than serve as an approximation assuming a 2 body system.
3) Provided and utilized generalized tools that were applicable not just to more orbital mechanics problems but also physical mechanics problems in general.



Please post the names of a few of these great scientific minds that dispute Newton's work, and their specific points of contention. Newton was arguably the greatest scientific mind ever to grace this planet. Of course, our knowledge at any given time is incomplete, and many great minds have supplanted much of his knowledge with superior theory. Like Einstein with special and general relativity and Heisenberg, Plank and Bohr with quantum mechanics. I don't know if I'd call these improvements disputes, necessarily...



For all your outlandish claims, I have yet to see any credible source support your views. Please, share as many links as you'd like from credible/peer reviewed sources to back up your claims...



It seems even easier to fool oneself...



How is my source biased?



Personally, I've seen plenty of guys like you in S&S&P over the years. You're a great example of knowing just enough to be dangerous. You seem attracted to the idea that somehow we're all sheep following the mainstream, and you have secret knowledge of what's really going on. No credible or empirical evidence, just erroneous sources consisting of truly whacky conspiracy sites and specious YT vids. You've learned enough to ask basic questions, but you seem to refuse to take the next step of searching for credible, well-established answers. I really don't think you want to learn about objective reality, I think that you like thinking you know better. You seem emotionally invested in this delusion, that seems childish and desperate to me. Like I've said before, you're obviously intelligent. I hope you are able to drop the nonsense so you can improve your critical thinking skills and choose sources that will bring you closer to learning about objective reality. I think you'll find it more interesting than your current path...

P.S. My invoice is in your inbox ;)
Click to expand...
Tautology.... And yet another instance where you prove to me what? Your assumption's on my character?
My belief is.... We are under indoctrination from our governments. I don't claim to be a physicist, do I? My claims stem from this belief; Copernicus introduced mainstream heliocentric THEORY, one of many theories attempting to explain related aspects of our planetary bodies. Kepler's equations attempted to provide mathematical proof of Copernicus's THEORY. His equations were based on his teachers observations Tycho Brahe*, who strongly opposed Copernican THEORY. Kepler himself admits "I myself, a professional mathematician, on re-reading my own work find it strains my mental powers to recall to mind from the figures the meanings of the demonstrations, meanings which I originally put into figures and the text from my mind". When Kepler succeeded Tycho as Imperial mathematician to the HOLY Roman Emperor Rudolf II, he returned the favour by immortalising the Emporors name by naming the Rudolphine Tables after him.

Isaac Micheal Newton
Newton was a devout Arian, thoroughly Christian, but belonging to a stream that rendered him a heretic. His theories extended to world extinction dates. Even in matters of faith and religion Newton was politically incorrect, but more correct than the majority would—or could—have admitted. Regardless, his Arianism Newton kept to himself, since at the time, in such an orthodox religious climate, to proclaim it would have meant the likely ruination of his career. Newton was also a Creationist. He believed in the Biblical Creation story—that God made the heavens and the earth in seven days—but he qualified this quite ingeniously. Since it is not specified in the Scriptures that all seven days were of equal length—because there was no Earth during the first two days, and thus, no twenty-four-hour day based upon planetary rotation—the length of a day could have been anything the good Lord desired.
Newton also managed to calculate a date for the second coming of Christ—some time during 1948. ( Newton appears to have missed the mark.) Prophecy and Biblical interpretation occupied Newton even in the last weeks of his life. Trying to ascertain when the Day of Judgement would come was, for Newton, an irresistible intellectual puzzle to be solved by one who was worthy of the challenge.
Picknett and Prince have written that every major character in the Scientific Revolution was steeped in Hermeticism,including; Copernicus, Kepler, Tycho Brahe, William Gilbert, William Harvey, and Newton’s nemesis Leibniz. In fact, all of Copernicus’ “radical” notions—especially the heliocentric concept—are to be found in the Hermetica, which originated from 2nd or 3rd century Alexandria, but To return specifically to Newton once more, the cute little tale (originating from Newton) about seeing an apple fall from a tree and thereupon falling into a “deep meditation” on the nature of gravity some time in the summer of 1666 is obviously a politically correct and safe enough version of events that would have served to protect Newton’s image from his secret obsession with alchemy and esotericism.
In reality, his alchemical creation in 1670 of the prized Star Regulus of Antimony (a step on the way to producing the Philosopher’s Stone) was probably one of many factors that fed into Newton’s theory of gravity as it ultimately appeared in the Principia of 1687. Due to its radiating shard-like crystals, the Regulus could be viewed as symbolic of the way gravity (or aether) flows into the centre of a celestial body. Besides being anathema to traditional science and society in general, the attempted transmutation of base metals into gold was also a capital offence. Newton needed to hide his pursuits in order to remain on the side of legality as well as to preserve his image and reputation as history’s greatest scientist. Still, as Picknett and Prince state: “Newton didn’t make his great discoveries despite his occult beliefs, but because of them.” I'll plagiarize more later.
 
Last edited:
reddan1981

reddan1981

Well-Known Member
New Ether Theory- Ka In Yen

Criticism of the Lorentz Transformation - Aleksandar Vujelja

New laws of gravity- Scalar theory of relativistic relativity gravity- Paul bird
Is the special theory of relativity wrong- Greg Alexander

Derivation of gravitational waves in Einstein Brans- Dicke and Rosen theories of gravity- Warren F. Davies

Eucidean Relativity

From paradox to paradigm (Alternative to relativity - Dragged Ether)- Johan Bakker

Dynamic Equilibrium of the Atemporal Universe-

Dielectric and magnetic universe

Flat Earth Theory

Hollow Earth Theory

Concave Earth Theory

Geocentrism

Multiple Universe Theory....

All of these offer alternate theories to mainstream dogmas. I could exhaust my point further but I've just finished work, and I've been driving and typing on my phone all day, Im starting to see double my hands are big and my phone touchscreen small, lol. Thankyou for the brain exercise, you are free to rip me a new arsehole....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top