Discussion:
It seems I'm not the first one here to discover duke's ignorance of physics
(too old to reply)
Ted
2017-08-23 15:16:00 UTC
Permalink
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.

But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right
2017-08-23 15:25:56 UTC
Permalink
It seems I'm not the first one here to discover duke's ignorance of physics
If Duke knows God and God rules over Physics, it follows that Duke knows physics God's way.... :-)
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-23 17:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
It is your ignorance which has just been demonstrated. All engineers specialize in certain fields. The curriculum for an Electrical Engineer is different than that for a Chemical Engineer. Several of my fraternity brothers in college were studying Elec Engineering and I read some of their textbooks. My brother was a Chemical Engineer and I know what he was working on.

Engineers learn the parts of Physics they need for their specific jobs.
They do not learn all the parts of Physics.
I learned some Physics while I was studying Naval Engineering, but not all of it. For example, the ship I was on was an oil burner, so I studied nothing about nuclear power plants.

You fucking atheists NEVER contribute anything to anyone's knowledge.
All ya do is find fault. Get lost.
Ted
2017-08-23 19:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
It is your ignorance which has just been demonstrated. All engineers
specialize in certain fields. The curriculum for an Electrical Engineer
is different than that for a Chemical Engineer. Several of my fraternity
brothers in college were studying Elec Engineering and I read some of
their textbooks. My brother was a Chemical Engineer and I know what he was working on.
Engineers learn the parts of Physics they need for their specific jobs.
They do not learn all the parts of Physics.
So then mechanical engineers can't be expected to know anything about
mechanics?
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-23 19:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
It is your ignorance which has just been demonstrated. All engineers
specialize in certain fields. The curriculum for an Electrical Engineer
is different than that for a Chemical Engineer. Several of my fraternity
brothers in college were studying Elec Engineering and I read some of
their textbooks. My brother was a Chemical Engineer and I know what he was working on.
Engineers learn the parts of Physics they need for their specific jobs.
They do not learn all the parts of Physics.
So then mechanical engineers can't be expected to know anything about
mechanics?
Specifics???????????????
Ted
2017-08-23 20:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
It is your ignorance which has just been demonstrated. All engineers
specialize in certain fields. The curriculum for an Electrical Engineer
is different than that for a Chemical Engineer. Several of my fraternity
brothers in college were studying Elec Engineering and I read some of
their textbooks. My brother was a Chemical Engineer and I know what he was working on.
Engineers learn the parts of Physics they need for their specific jobs.
They do not learn all the parts of Physics.
So then mechanical engineers can't be expected to know anything about
mechanics?
Specifics???????????????
And you think you're qualified to construct a physics quiz?
v***@gmail.com
2017-08-23 22:46:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
It is your ignorance which has just been demonstrated. All engineers
specialize in certain fields. The curriculum for an Electrical Engineer
is different than that for a Chemical Engineer. Several of my fraternity
brothers in college were studying Elec Engineering and I read some of
their textbooks. My brother was a Chemical Engineer and I know what he was working on.
Engineers learn the parts of Physics they need for their specific jobs.
They do not learn all the parts of Physics.
So then mechanical engineers can't be expected to know anything about
mechanics?
Specifics???????????????
And you think you're qualified to construct a physics quiz?
I didn't realize any particular qualifications were necessary.
Ted
2017-08-24 01:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
It is your ignorance which has just been demonstrated. All engineers
specialize in certain fields. The curriculum for an Electrical Engineer
is different than that for a Chemical Engineer. Several of my fraternity
brothers in college were studying Elec Engineering and I read some of
their textbooks. My brother was a Chemical Engineer and I know what he was working on.
Engineers learn the parts of Physics they need for their specific jobs.
They do not learn all the parts of Physics.
So then mechanical engineers can't be expected to know anything about
mechanics?
Specifics???????????????
And you think you're qualified to construct a physics quiz?
I didn't realize any particular qualifications were necessary.
You'd at least have to know what "mechanics" is, which you obviously don't.
Most physics curricula start out with a course in elementary Newtonian
mechanics, so it's what you'd get during your first semester.
Yap Honghor
2017-08-25 07:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
It is your ignorance which has just been demonstrated. All engineers
specialize in certain fields. The curriculum for an Electrical Engineer
is different than that for a Chemical Engineer. Several of my fraternity
brothers in college were studying Elec Engineering and I read some of
their textbooks. My brother was a Chemical Engineer and I know what he was working on.
Engineers learn the parts of Physics they need for their specific jobs.
They do not learn all the parts of Physics.
So then mechanical engineers can't be expected to know anything about
mechanics?
Specifics???????????????
And you think you're qualified to construct a physics quiz?
I didn't realize any particular qualifications were necessary.
You'd at least have to know what "mechanics" is, which you obviously don't.
Most physics curricula start out with a course in elementary Newtonian
mechanics, so it's what you'd get during your first semester.
Didn't you read above he learned Physics while studying Naval Engineering? He inflated so much that he knew physics...just the same way he posted quiz on law since he had told us that he was a lawyer!!!!
Ted
2017-08-25 10:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
It is your ignorance which has just been demonstrated. All engineers
specialize in certain fields. The curriculum for an Electrical Engineer
is different than that for a Chemical Engineer. Several of my fraternity
brothers in college were studying Elec Engineering and I read some of
their textbooks. My brother was a Chemical Engineer and I know what
he was working on.
Engineers learn the parts of Physics they need for their specific jobs.
They do not learn all the parts of Physics.
So then mechanical engineers can't be expected to know anything about
mechanics?
Specifics???????????????
And you think you're qualified to construct a physics quiz?
I didn't realize any particular qualifications were necessary.
You'd at least have to know what "mechanics" is, which you obviously don't.
Most physics curricula start out with a course in elementary Newtonian
mechanics, so it's what you'd get during your first semester.
Didn't you read above he learned Physics while studying Naval
Engineering? He inflated so much that he knew physics...just the same way
he posted quiz on law since he had told us that he was a lawyer!!!!
Of course. ArtyJoe and duke are both liars.
Smiler
2017-08-25 19:14:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose
knowledge of physics is much greater than mine, had his own
experiences with duke's arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
It is your ignorance which has just been demonstrated. All
engineers specialize in certain fields. The curriculum for an
Electrical Engineer is different than that for a Chemical
Engineer. Several of my fraternity brothers in college were
studying Elec Engineering and I read some of their textbooks. My
brother was a Chemical Engineer and I know what he was working
on.
Engineers learn the parts of Physics they need for their specific
jobs. They do not learn all the parts of Physics.
So then mechanical engineers can't be expected to know anything
about mechanics?
Specifics???????????????
And you think you're qualified to construct a physics quiz?
I didn't realize any particular qualifications were necessary.
You'd at least have to know what "mechanics" is, which you obviously don't.
Most physics curricula start out with a course in elementary Newtonian
mechanics, so it's what you'd get during your first semester.
Didn't you read above he learned Physics while studying Naval
Engineering? He inflated so much that he knew physics...just the same
way he posted quiz on law since he had told us that he was a lawyer!!!!
Of course. ArtyJoe and duke are both liars.
Good job that nobody here believes a word that either of them write is
true.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Ted
2017-08-25 19:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by Ted
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose
knowledge of physics is much greater than mine, had his own
experiences with duke's arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
It is your ignorance which has just been demonstrated. All
engineers specialize in certain fields. The curriculum for an
Electrical Engineer is different than that for a Chemical
Engineer. Several of my fraternity brothers in college were
studying Elec Engineering and I read some of their textbooks. My
brother was a Chemical Engineer and I know what he was working
on.
Engineers learn the parts of Physics they need for their specific
jobs. They do not learn all the parts of Physics.
So then mechanical engineers can't be expected to know anything
about mechanics?
Specifics???????????????
And you think you're qualified to construct a physics quiz?
I didn't realize any particular qualifications were necessary.
You'd at least have to know what "mechanics" is, which you obviously don't.
Most physics curricula start out with a course in elementary Newtonian
mechanics, so it's what you'd get during your first semester.
Didn't you read above he learned Physics while studying Naval
Engineering? He inflated so much that he knew physics...just the same
way he posted quiz on law since he had told us that he was a lawyer!!!!
Of course. ArtyJoe and duke are both liars.
Good job that nobody here believes a word that either of them write is
true.
We can't. Of course, everybody in the group knew they were both liars
almost since they've been here.

Hey Smiler, do you remember Gospel Bretts? He debuted here shortly before
you did, IIRC.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-08-24 05:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
It is your ignorance which has just been demonstrated. All engineers
specialize in certain fields. The curriculum for an Electrical Engineer
is different than that for a Chemical Engineer. Several of my fraternity
brothers in college were studying Elec Engineering and I read some of
their textbooks. My brother was a Chemical Engineer and I know what he was working on.
Engineers learn the parts of Physics they need for their specific jobs.
They do not learn all the parts of Physics.
So then mechanical engineers can't be expected to know anything about
mechanics?
Specifics???????????????
And you think you're qualified to construct a physics quiz?
I didn't realize any particular qualifications were necessary.
Having knowledge of the subject always helps.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Jeanne Douglas
2017-08-24 05:11:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
It is your ignorance which has just been demonstrated. All engineers
specialize in certain fields. The curriculum for an Electrical Engineer
is different than that for a Chemical Engineer. Several of my fraternity
brothers in college were studying Elec Engineering and I read some of
their textbooks. My brother was a Chemical Engineer and I know what he was working on.
Engineers learn the parts of Physics they need for their specific jobs.
They do not learn all the parts of Physics.
So then mechanical engineers can't be expected to know anything about
mechanics?
Specifics???????????????
Oh, good grief.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Jeanne Douglas
2017-08-24 04:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
=20
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
It is your ignorance which has just been demonstrated. All engineers specia=
lize in certain fields. The curriculum for an Electrical Engineer is differ=
ent than that for a Chemical Engineer.
And Ted was talking about someone who claims to be a Mechanical Engineer knowing nothing about Mechanics. No other types of engineer is even implied.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-08-24 21:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
It is your ignorance which has just been demonstrated. All engineers specialize in certain fields. The curriculum for an Electrical Engineer is different than that for a Chemical Engineer. Several of my fraternity brothers in college were studying Elec Engineering and I read some of their textbooks. My brother was a Chemical Engineer and I know what he was working on.
Engineers learn the parts of Physics they need for their specific jobs.
They do not learn all the parts of Physics.
I learned some Physics while I was studying Naval Engineering, but not all of it. For example, the ship I was on was an oil burner, so I studied nothing about nuclear power plants.
You fucking atheists NEVER contribute anything to anyone's knowledge.
All ya do is find fault. Get lost.
Teddie the fairy is a real kick - stupid as the day is long.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Michelle Malkin
2017-08-23 18:56:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
He's a sewer engineer.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Ted
2017-08-23 19:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michelle Malkin
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
He's a sewer engineer.
That would make sense. Thanks Mickey.
Smiler
2017-08-23 20:19:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michelle Malkin
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge
of physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with
duke's arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
He's a sewer engineer.
So that's where he gets all his shit from. Explains a lot.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Ted
2017-08-23 20:43:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by Michelle Malkin
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge
of physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with
duke's arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
He's a sewer engineer.
So that's where he gets all his shit from. Explains a lot.
LOL! :)
duke
2017-08-24 21:07:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by Michelle Malkin
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge
of physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with
duke's arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
He's a sewer engineer.
So that's where he gets all his shit from. Explains a lot.
Most of it comes form stupid atheists.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Your Founding Fathers Erred
2017-08-23 21:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michelle Malkin
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
He's a sewer engineer.
And you're confined to Food Pantry....
Post by Michelle Malkin
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-08-24 21:07:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michelle Malkin
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
He's a sewer engineer.
And you are the pimp, eh.........pump..

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
duke
2017-08-24 17:56:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-08-25 09:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Gravitation acts as the centripetal force and Newton's laws apply. Newton's
laws *always* apply to macroscopic situations, duke, you fucking moron.

F=ma is one of Newton's laws. The centripetal force (gravity) causes a
centripetal acceleration of the mass. Because a centripetal acceleration
acts perpendicularly to the direction of motion, it changes the mass's
direction rather than its speed.

Acceleration is defined as the rate of change of velocity with respect to
time, a = dv/dt. velocity is defined as the rate of change of displacement
with respect to time, v=dx/dt.

Got it, duke? Speed is not velocity. The satellite's change of displacement
is zero during the course of one revolution.


You know no mechanics and hence cannot possibly be a mechanical engineer.
You pretended to be one, possibly to dodge the draft. But you aren't even
intelligent enough to have passed the classes required for the degree.
You're a fraud, duke, and we know you're a fraud.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-08-26 18:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Everything in the solar system is undergoing acceleration.

Everything in the galaxy in undergoing acceleration.

Everything in the universe is undergoing acceleration.

Unless you've magically found a way to switch off gravity, that is.
Anything subject to gravity is undergoing acceleration.


Atlatl Axolotl
duke
2017-08-27 16:52:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 11:22:00 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Everything in the solar system is undergoing acceleration.
Yes, an increasing rate.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Everything in the galaxy in undergoing acceleration.
Everything in the universe is undergoing acceleration.
Unless you've magically found a way to switch off gravity, that is.
Anything subject to gravity is undergoing acceleration.
Is the universe subject to outside gravity?


the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Tim
2017-08-27 19:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
duke
2017-08-28 21:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.

You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-08-28 22:24:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
duke
2017-08-29 16:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-08-29 19:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-08-29 20:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.

It certainly is -- constantly being accelerated toward the Earth's
center of mass. Forever falling.

And it damn well better be, otherwise some very
expensive hardware will suddenly start sailing off in a straight line
towards Alpha Centauri.


AA
Ted
2017-08-29 20:57:33 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It certainly is -- constantly being accelerated toward the Earth's
center of mass. Forever falling.
And it damn well better be, otherwise some very
expensive hardware will suddenly start sailing off in a straight line
towards Alpha Centauri.
AA
Good point. And yes, duke claims to be a mechanical engineer but he
knows literally nothing about mechanics.
duke
2017-08-30 21:33:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It certainly is -- constantly being accelerated toward the Earth's
center of mass. Forever falling.
And it damn well better be, otherwise some very
expensive hardware will suddenly start sailing off in a straight line
towards Alpha Centauri.
AA
Good point. And yes, duke claims to be a mechanical engineer but he
knows literally nothing about mechanics.
So far you have failed both tests, D average high school student.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-08-30 22:17:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It certainly is -- constantly being accelerated toward the Earth's
center of mass. Forever falling.
And it damn well better be, otherwise some very
expensive hardware will suddenly start sailing off in a straight line
towards Alpha Centauri.
AA
Good point. And yes, duke claims to be a mechanical engineer but he
knows literally nothing about mechanics.
So far you have failed both tests, D average high school student.
I've failed to demonstrate the same abysmal depths of stupidity and
dishonesty that you demonstrate continually. Those "tests"?
hleopold
2017-08-30 08:41:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Tim
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge
of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth
orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It certainly is -- constantly being accelerated toward the Earth's
center of mass. Forever falling.
And it damn well better be, otherwise some very
expensive hardware will suddenly start sailing off in a straight line
towards Alpha Centauri.
AA
As well as ourselves, along with every other orbiting object in the universe.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness (remove gene to email)

"I've got a pen and I'm not afraid to use it."-Charles R Ward
duke
2017-08-30 21:27:05 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
It certainly is -- constantly being accelerated toward the Earth's
center of mass. Forever falling.
And it damn well better be, otherwise some very
expensive hardware will suddenly start sailing off in a straight line
towards Alpha Centauri.
AA
the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Syd M.
2017-08-30 21:29:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Yes, we know how ignorant you are, Dork. No need to keep reminding us.

PDW
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-08-31 01:39:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction. The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.

Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.


AtlAxo
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
It certainly is -- constantly being accelerated toward the Earth's
center of mass. Forever falling.
And it damn well better be, otherwise some very
expensive hardware will suddenly start sailing off in a straight line
towards Alpha Centauri.
AA
the dukester, American-American
*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
duke
2017-08-31 16:33:58 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration. You gobblers are eat up with goobers over
definitions.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
AtlAxo
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
It certainly is -- constantly being accelerated toward the Earth's
center of mass. Forever falling.
And it damn well better be, otherwise some very
expensive hardware will suddenly start sailing off in a straight line
towards Alpha Centauri.
AA
the dukester, American-American
*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-08-31 18:10:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
Indeed. That's by definition of acceleration. If both the speed and
direction are constant, then the acceleration is zero.
Post by duke
You gobblers are eat up with goobers over
definitions.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
duke
2017-09-01 21:22:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
Indeed. That's by definition of acceleration. If both the speed and
direction are constant, then the acceleration is zero.
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.

Even in the plotting of a displacement curve, there is no acceleration.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-09-01 21:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
Indeed. That's by definition of acceleration. If both the speed and
direction are constant, then the acceleration is zero.
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Oh, we don't have to go that far -- inertial frames of reference
are intrinsic to Galilean relativity too.

And I suspect both God and Galileo are having a good laugh
at ol' Duke here right now. Over this very bit of hilarity.
Post by duke
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.
Anyone where the Official Usenet Archivist has gotten to? We
definitely need to memorialize this post. It's Duke's most desperate
one ever -- rather than simply admit a minor mistake, Duke is now rotating
the ENTIRE UNIVERSE to make it look as if he didn't blunder.

Too bad no one is still maintaining the the most hilarious theist
quote of the month award. This one would totally sweep any competition.


Atlatl
Post by duke
Even in the plotting of a displacement curve, there is no acceleration.
the dukester, American-American
*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-09-01 22:35:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
Indeed. That's by definition of acceleration. If both the speed and
direction are constant, then the acceleration is zero.
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Oh, we don't have to go that far -- inertial frames of reference
are intrinsic to Galilean relativity too.
Thanks for correcting me, AA.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
And I suspect both God and Galileo are having a good laugh
at ol' Duke here right now. Over this very bit of hilarity.
Post by duke
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.
Anyone where the Official Usenet Archivist has gotten to? We
definitely need to memorialize this post. It's Duke's most desperate
one ever -- rather than simply admit a minor mistake, Duke is now rotating
the ENTIRE UNIVERSE to make it look as if he didn't blunder.
ROFL! :)
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Too bad no one is still maintaining the the most hilarious theist
quote of the month award. This one would totally sweep any competition.
Definitely. And I miss those too. After Nemo left, they were gone, but then
Uncle Vic handled them for a while. Too bad nobody here wants to pick it
back up again.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Atlatl
duke
2017-09-02 17:14:01 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 14:49:17 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Oh, we don't have to go that far -- inertial frames of reference
are intrinsic to Galilean relativity too.
And I suspect both God and Galileo are having a good laugh
at ol' Duke here right now. Over this very bit of hilarity.
How is an athlete in the hammer throw not like a satellite?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.
Anyone where the Official Usenet Archivist has gotten to? We
definitely need to memorialize this post.
Did you not realize that the centripetal "acceleration" is gravity, a force.


the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-09-02 17:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 14:49:17 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Oh, we don't have to go that far -- inertial frames of reference
are intrinsic to Galilean relativity too.
And I suspect both God and Galileo are having a good laugh
at ol' Duke here right now. Over this very bit of hilarity.
How is an athlete in the hammer throw not like a satellite?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.
Anyone where the Official Usenet Archivist has gotten to? We
definitely need to memorialize this post.
Did you not realize that the centripetal "acceleration" is gravity, a force
Yes, gravity is indeed exerting a centripetal force on the satellite.
It is in fact the force that keeps the satellite constantly accelerating
toward the Earth's center of mass.

Do notice how often the words "acceleration" and "satellite" both
occur in the following quotes. What a remarkable coincidence, eh?


"Artificial satellites are continually accelerating towards
the Earth."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/triple_ocr_gateway/space_for_reflection/satellites_gravity_circular_motion/revision/4/



"a satellite is acted upon by the force of gravity and this
force does accelerate it towards the Earth. In the absence
of gravity a satellite would move in a straight line path
tangent to the Earth."

-- http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/vectors/sat.cfm



"The acceleration of the satellite would be directed towards
the center of the circle - towards the central body that it
is orbiting. And this acceleration is caused by a net force
that is directed inwards in the same direction as the
acceleration."

-- http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites



"It does keep accelerating. Its velocity in the direction of
the object being orbited keeps increasing.

"But this direction keeps changing. The reason the
satellite's total speed doesn't increase, at least in the
case of a circular orbit, is that while its velocity towards
the object increases, its tangential motion moves it forward
so that that direction is always perpendicular to the
direction of motion. Thus while the satellite is undergoing
constant acceleration, that acceleration is always
perpendicular to the direction of motion and the speed of
the object never changes."

-- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122284/why-doesnt-an-orbiting-body-keep-accelerating


Would you like to see some more? They're easy enough to find.
It would be my pleasure.


AA
duke
2017-09-03 14:42:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 10:22:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 14:49:17 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Oh, we don't have to go that far -- inertial frames of reference
are intrinsic to Galilean relativity too.
And I suspect both God and Galileo are having a good laugh
at ol' Duke here right now. Over this very bit of hilarity.
How is an athlete in the hammer throw not like a satellite?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.
Anyone where the Official Usenet Archivist has gotten to? We
definitely need to memorialize this post.
Did you not realize that the centripetal "acceleration" is gravity, a force
Yes, gravity is indeed exerting a centripetal force on the satellite.
It is in fact the force that keeps the satellite constantly accelerating
toward the Earth's center of mass.
But not moving toward it. I see a meaningless definition, not a useful
expression of action addressing external actions. It's in stable orbit. Such
would not be the case for an athlete's hammer throw requiring input form the
athlete.

As I previously stated, a satellite in stable earth orbit has nothing changing
except a hypothetical vector redirection. What has changed other that the same
centripetal force a tad moved over continuously thru all points of the compass.
To me, just a definition. The force has to be addressed to keep it in orbit.

I also asked teddie the fairy to give me an example of speed without direction.
He never could answer.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Do notice how often the words "acceleration" and "satellite" both
occur in the following quotes. What a remarkable coincidence, eh?
"Artificial satellites are continually accelerating towards
the Earth."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/triple_ocr_gateway/space_for_reflection/satellites_gravity_circular_motion/revision/4/
"a satellite is acted upon by the force of gravity and this
force does accelerate it towards the Earth. In the absence
of gravity a satellite would move in a straight line path
tangent to the Earth."
-- http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/vectors/sat.cfm
"The acceleration of the satellite would be directed towards
the center of the circle - towards the central body that it
is orbiting. And this acceleration is caused by a net force
that is directed inwards in the same direction as the
acceleration."
-- http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites
"It does keep accelerating. Its velocity in the direction of
the object being orbited keeps increasing.
"But this direction keeps changing. The reason the
satellite's total speed doesn't increase, at least in the
case of a circular orbit, is that while its velocity towards
the object increases, its tangential motion moves it forward
so that that direction is always perpendicular to the
direction of motion. Thus while the satellite is undergoing
constant acceleration, that acceleration is always
perpendicular to the direction of motion and the speed of
the object never changes."
-- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122284/why-doesnt-an-orbiting-body-keep-accelerating
Would you like to see some more? They're easy enough to find.
It would be my pleasure.
AA
the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-09-03 15:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 10:22:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 14:49:17 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Oh, we don't have to go that far -- inertial frames of reference
are intrinsic to Galilean relativity too.
And I suspect both God and Galileo are having a good laugh
at ol' Duke here right now. Over this very bit of hilarity.
How is an athlete in the hammer throw not like a satellite?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.
Anyone where the Official Usenet Archivist has gotten to? We
definitely need to memorialize this post.
Did you not realize that the centripetal "acceleration" is gravity, a force
Yes, gravity is indeed exerting a centripetal force on the satellite.
It is in fact the force that keeps the satellite constantly accelerating
toward the Earth's center of mass.
But not moving toward it. I see a meaningless definition, not a useful
expression of action addressing external actions. It's in stable orbit. Such
would not be the case for an athlete's hammer throw requiring input form the
athlete.
As I previously stated, a satellite in stable earth orbit has nothing changing
except a hypothetical vector redirection. What has changed other that the same
centripetal force a tad moved over continuously thru all points of the compass.
To me, just a definition. The force has to be addressed to keep it in orbit.
I also asked teddie the fairy to give me an example of speed without direction.
He never could answer.
You just gave it. The speed of a satellite orbiting the Earth. Its
average velocity is zero (relative to the Earth).
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-09-03 16:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 10:22:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 14:49:17 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Oh, we don't have to go that far -- inertial frames of reference
are intrinsic to Galilean relativity too.
And I suspect both God and Galileo are having a good laugh
at ol' Duke here right now. Over this very bit of hilarity.
How is an athlete in the hammer throw not like a satellite?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.
Anyone where the Official Usenet Archivist has gotten to? We
definitely need to memorialize this post.
Did you not realize that the centripetal "acceleration" is gravity, a force
Yes, gravity is indeed exerting a centripetal force on the satellite.
It is in fact the force that keeps the satellite constantly accelerating
toward the Earth's center of mass.
But not moving toward it. I see a meaningless definition, not a useful
expression of action addressing external actions. It's in stable orbit. Such
would not be the case for an athlete's hammer throw requiring input form the
athlete.
As I previously stated, a satellite in stable earth orbit has nothing changing
except a hypothetical vector redirection. What has changed other that the same
centripetal force a tad moved over continuously thru all points of the compass.
To me, just a definition. The force has to be addressed to keep it in orbit.
I also asked teddie the fairy to give me an example of speed without direction.
He never could answer.
You just gave it. The speed of a satellite orbiting the Earth. Its
average velocity is zero (relative to the Earth).
Integrated over the entire path, that's right. the speed, being
scalar is non-zero, but the direction, summed over a complete orbit, is zero.

Of course at any given point, that's not true, but Duke asked you
a bizarre question and you came up with a reasonable answer.

aa
Ted
2017-09-03 17:10:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:11:37 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 10:22:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 14:49:17 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Oh, we don't have to go that far -- inertial frames of reference
are intrinsic to Galilean relativity too.
And I suspect both God and Galileo are having a good laugh
at ol' Duke here right now. Over this very bit of hilarity.
How is an athlete in the hammer throw not like a satellite?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.
Anyone where the Official Usenet Archivist has gotten to? We
definitely need to memorialize this post.
Did you not realize that the centripetal "acceleration" is gravity, a force
Yes, gravity is indeed exerting a centripetal force on the satellite.
It is in fact the force that keeps the satellite constantly accelerating
toward the Earth's center of mass.
But not moving toward it. I see a meaningless definition, not a useful
expression of action addressing external actions. It's in stable orbit. Such
would not be the case for an athlete's hammer throw requiring input form the
athlete.
As I previously stated, a satellite in stable earth orbit has nothing changing
except a hypothetical vector redirection. What has changed other that the same
centripetal force a tad moved over continuously thru all points of the compass.
To me, just a definition. The force has to be addressed to keep it in orbit.
I also asked teddie the fairy to give me an example of speed without direction.
He never could answer.
You just gave it. The speed of a satellite orbiting the Earth. Its
average velocity is zero (relative to the Earth).
Integrated over the entire path, that's right. the speed, being
scalar is non-zero, but the direction, summed over a complete orbit, is zero.
You think much more clearly than I do. I was only considering the
velocities at opposite ends of the orbit.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Of course at any given point, that's not true, but Duke asked you
a bizarre question and you came up with a reasonable answer.
aa
duke
2017-09-04 18:01:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:11:37 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 10:22:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 14:49:17 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Oh, we don't have to go that far -- inertial frames of reference
are intrinsic to Galilean relativity too.
And I suspect both God and Galileo are having a good laugh
at ol' Duke here right now. Over this very bit of hilarity.
How is an athlete in the hammer throw not like a satellite?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.
Anyone where the Official Usenet Archivist has gotten to? We
definitely need to memorialize this post.
Did you not realize that the centripetal "acceleration" is gravity, a force
Yes, gravity is indeed exerting a centripetal force on the satellite.
It is in fact the force that keeps the satellite constantly accelerating
toward the Earth's center of mass.
But not moving toward it. I see a meaningless definition, not a useful
expression of action addressing external actions. It's in stable orbit. Such
would not be the case for an athlete's hammer throw requiring input form the
athlete.
As I previously stated, a satellite in stable earth orbit has nothing changing
except a hypothetical vector redirection. What has changed other that the same
centripetal force a tad moved over continuously thru all points of the compass.
To me, just a definition. The force has to be addressed to keep it in orbit.
I also asked teddie the fairy to give me an example of speed without direction.
He never could answer.
You just gave it. The speed of a satellite orbiting the Earth. Its
average velocity is zero (relative to the Earth).
Integrated over the entire path, that's right. the speed, being
scalar is non-zero, but the direction, summed over a complete orbit, is zero.
Of course at any given point, that's not true, but Duke asked you
a bizarre question and you came up with a reasonable answer.
Not the answer. Give me an example of speed without direction.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
duke
2017-09-04 18:00:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 10:22:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 14:49:17 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Oh, we don't have to go that far -- inertial frames of reference
are intrinsic to Galilean relativity too.
And I suspect both God and Galileo are having a good laugh
at ol' Duke here right now. Over this very bit of hilarity.
How is an athlete in the hammer throw not like a satellite?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.
Anyone where the Official Usenet Archivist has gotten to? We
definitely need to memorialize this post.
Did you not realize that the centripetal "acceleration" is gravity, a force
Yes, gravity is indeed exerting a centripetal force on the satellite.
It is in fact the force that keeps the satellite constantly accelerating
toward the Earth's center of mass.
But not moving toward it. I see a meaningless definition, not a useful
expression of action addressing external actions. It's in stable orbit. Such
would not be the case for an athlete's hammer throw requiring input form the
athlete.
As I previously stated, a satellite in stable earth orbit has nothing changing
except a hypothetical vector redirection. What has changed other that the same
centripetal force a tad moved over continuously thru all points of the compass.
To me, just a definition. The force has to be addressed to keep it in orbit.
I also asked teddie the fairy to give me an example of speed without direction.
He never could answer.
You just gave it. The speed of a satellite orbiting the Earth. Its
average velocity is zero (relative to the Earth).
Wrong.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-09-03 16:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 10:22:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 14:49:17 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Oh, we don't have to go that far -- inertial frames of reference
are intrinsic to Galilean relativity too.
And I suspect both God and Galileo are having a good laugh
at ol' Duke here right now. Over this very bit of hilarity.
How is an athlete in the hammer throw not like a satellite?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.
Anyone where the Official Usenet Archivist has gotten to? We
definitely need to memorialize this post.
Did you not realize that the centripetal "acceleration" is gravity, a force
Yes, gravity is indeed exerting a centripetal force on the satellite.
It is in fact the force that keeps the satellite constantly accelerating
toward the Earth's center of mass.
But not moving toward it.
Doesn't matter if it's moving towards the earth, in stable
orbit, or moving away. In all cases gravity is modifying the
direction it would be moving if it were not in a gravitational field.
It is feeling a force, and that force is keeping it from going in
the straight line its trying to go in.

That's acceleration.
Post by duke
I see a meaningless definition, not a useful
expression of action addressing external actions.
It is nothing more nor less than Newton's first law of motion.
Which, in case you hadn't noticed, has proven to be an
extremely useful "definition".
Post by duke
It's in stable orbit. Such
would not be the case for an athlete's hammer throw requiring input form the
athlete.
I would reply to this, but I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Post by duke
As I previously stated, a satellite in stable earth orbit has nothing changing
except a hypothetical vector redirection.
There is nothing "hypothetical" about its constantly changing direction.
It is changing, changing continuously. And we call that "acceleration".
Post by duke
What has changed other that the same
centripetal force a tad moved over continuously thru all points of the compass.
To me, just a definition. The force has to be addressed to keep it in orbit.
Again, I have no idea what you are saying here.
Post by duke
I also asked teddie the fairy to give me an example of speed without direction.
He never could answer.
You're asking for an example of a body in motion, but not moving n
any direction? You might want to think about that a bit more.


Again, do notice how often the words "acceleration" and "satellite" both
occur in the following quotes. Something you don't seem to want
to discuss.

Why is that?


. "Artificial satellites are continually accelerating towards
. the Earth."

. -- http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/triple_ocr_gateway/space_for_reflection/satellites_gravity_circular_motion/revision/4/


. "a satellite is acted upon by the force of gravity and this
. force does accelerate it towards the Earth. In the absence
. of gravity a satellite would move in a straight line path
. tangent to the Earth."

. -- http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/vectors/sat.cfm



. "The acceleration of the satellite would be directed towards
. the center of the circle - towards the central body that it
. is orbiting. And this acceleration is caused by a net force
. that is directed inwards in the same direction as the
. acceleration."

. -- http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites



. "It does keep accelerating. Its velocity in the direction of
. the object being orbited keeps increasing.

. "But this direction keeps changing. The reason the
. satellite's total speed doesn't increase, at least in the
. case of a circular orbit, is that while its velocity towards
. the object increases, its tangential motion moves it forward
. so that that direction is always perpendicular to the
. direction of motion. Thus while the satellite is undergoing
. constant acceleration, that acceleration is always
. perpendicular to the direction of motion and the speed of
. the object never changes."

. -- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122284/why-doesnt-an-orbiting-body-keep-accelerating


AtlAxo
duke
2017-09-04 18:03:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:00:16 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 10:22:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 14:49:17 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Oh, we don't have to go that far -- inertial frames of reference
are intrinsic to Galilean relativity too.
And I suspect both God and Galileo are having a good laugh
at ol' Duke here right now. Over this very bit of hilarity.
How is an athlete in the hammer throw not like a satellite?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.
Anyone where the Official Usenet Archivist has gotten to? We
definitely need to memorialize this post.
Did you not realize that the centripetal "acceleration" is gravity, a force
Yes, gravity is indeed exerting a centripetal force on the satellite.
It is in fact the force that keeps the satellite constantly accelerating
toward the Earth's center of mass.
But not moving toward it.
Doesn't matter if it's moving towards the earth, in stable
orbit, or moving away. In all cases gravity is modifying the
direction it would be moving if it were not in a gravitational field.
Yep, a force, just like I said. Inertia overcome by a force.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-09-04 19:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:00:16 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 10:22:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 14:49:17 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Oh, we don't have to go that far -- inertial frames of reference
are intrinsic to Galilean relativity too.
And I suspect both God and Galileo are having a good laugh
at ol' Duke here right now. Over this very bit of hilarity.
How is an athlete in the hammer throw not like a satellite?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.
Anyone where the Official Usenet Archivist has gotten to? We
definitely need to memorialize this post.
Did you not realize that the centripetal "acceleration" is gravity, a force
Yes, gravity is indeed exerting a centripetal force on the satellite.
It is in fact the force that keeps the satellite constantly accelerating
toward the Earth's center of mass.
But not moving toward it.
Doesn't matter if it's moving towards the earth, in stable
orbit, or moving away. In all cases gravity is modifying the
direction it would be moving if it were not in a gravitational field.
Yep, a force, just like I said. Inertia overcome by a force.
You're so damn dumb, duke. Almost every statement you make reveals gross
ignorance.

Tim
2017-09-01 22:21:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
Indeed. That's by definition of acceleration. If both the speed and
direction are constant, then the acceleration is zero.
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
How can "constant speed change" not be considered as an acceleration? There must be an acceleration or there wouldn't be a speed change - constant or not. You're an idiot.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.
So if they've rotated, they've changed direction, ergo they've accelerated, you putty brained bag of fat.
Post by duke
Even in the plotting of a displacement curve, there is no acceleration.
Ted
2017-09-01 22:51:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
Indeed. That's by definition of acceleration. If both the speed and
direction are constant, then the acceleration is zero.
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
How can "constant speed change" not be considered as an acceleration?
There must be an acceleration or there wouldn't be a speed change -
constant or not. You're an idiot.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.
So if they've rotated, they've changed direction, ergo they've
accelerated, you putty brained bag of fat.
LOL. "putty brained bag of fat" ... beautiful. :)
duke
2017-09-02 17:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
Indeed. That's by definition of acceleration. If both the speed and
direction are constant, then the acceleration is zero.
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
How can "constant speed change" not be considered as an acceleration? There must be an acceleration or there wouldn't be a speed change - constant or not. You're an idiot.
Because it's not variable speed change.


the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Tim
2017-09-02 19:00:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
Indeed. That's by definition of acceleration. If both the speed and
direction are constant, then the acceleration is zero.
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
How can "constant speed change" not be considered as an acceleration? There must be an acceleration or there wouldn't be a speed change - constant or not. You're an idiot.
Because it's not variable speed change.
Like I already said, it does not matter if the change is constant or varying, as long as there is a change then there is acceleration. And the change can be in magnitude, direction, or both.

You're still an idiot.
Ted
2017-09-02 21:00:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit
have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
Indeed. That's by definition of acceleration. If both the speed and
direction are constant, then the acceleration is zero.
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
How can "constant speed change" not be considered as an acceleration?
There must be an acceleration or there wouldn't be a speed change -
constant or not. You're an idiot.
Because it's not variable speed change.
Like I already said, it does not matter if the change is constant or
varying, as long as there is a change then there is acceleration. And the
change can be in magnitude, direction, or both.
You're still an idiot.
And a liar. And fun to ridicule. :)
Tim
2017-09-02 21:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit
have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
Indeed. That's by definition of acceleration. If both the speed and
direction are constant, then the acceleration is zero.
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
How can "constant speed change" not be considered as an acceleration?
There must be an acceleration or there wouldn't be a speed change -
constant or not. You're an idiot.
Because it's not variable speed change.
Like I already said, it does not matter if the change is constant or
varying, as long as there is a change then there is acceleration. And the
change can be in magnitude, direction, or both.
You're still an idiot.
And a liar. And fun to ridicule. :)
He's blatantly dishonest, and that makes him ugly considering what he professes to stand for.

I really don't like to ridicule people. But you're right. People like earl are fun to ridicule.
Ted
2017-09-02 22:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by Ted
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit
have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
Indeed. That's by definition of acceleration. If both the speed and
direction are constant, then the acceleration is zero.
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
How can "constant speed change" not be considered as an acceleration?
There must be an acceleration or there wouldn't be a speed change -
constant or not. You're an idiot.
Because it's not variable speed change.
Like I already said, it does not matter if the change is constant or
varying, as long as there is a change then there is acceleration. And the
change can be in magnitude, direction, or both.
You're still an idiot.
And a liar. And fun to ridicule. :)
He's blatantly dishonest, and that makes him ugly considering what he
professes to stand for.
Good point. Duke's immorality is hideous.
Post by Tim
I really don't like to ridicule people. But you're right. People like
earl are fun to ridicule.
Considering that he deserves it, yes indeed. He refuses to stop lying.
duke
2017-09-03 14:43:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by Ted
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit
have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
Indeed. That's by definition of acceleration. If both the speed and
direction are constant, then the acceleration is zero.
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
How can "constant speed change" not be considered as an acceleration?
There must be an acceleration or there wouldn't be a speed change -
constant or not. You're an idiot.
Because it's not variable speed change.
Like I already said, it does not matter if the change is constant or
varying, as long as there is a change then there is acceleration. And the
change can be in magnitude, direction, or both.
You're still an idiot.
And a liar. And fun to ridicule. :)
He's blatantly dishonest, and that makes him ugly considering what he professes to stand for.
I really don't like to ridicule people. But you're right. People like earl are fun to ridicule.
That's an open assessment that he is no Christian. Just a filth mouth.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-09-03 16:00:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by Ted
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit
have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
Indeed. That's by definition of acceleration. If both the speed and
direction are constant, then the acceleration is zero.
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
How can "constant speed change" not be considered as an acceleration?
There must be an acceleration or there wouldn't be a speed change -
constant or not. You're an idiot.
Because it's not variable speed change.
Like I already said, it does not matter if the change is constant or
varying, as long as there is a change then there is acceleration. And the
change can be in magnitude, direction, or both.
You're still an idiot.
And a liar. And fun to ridicule. :)
He's blatantly dishonest, and that makes him ugly considering what he professes to stand for.
I really don't like to ridicule people. But you're right. People like earl are fun to ridicule.
That's an open assessment that he is no Christian. Just a filth mouth.
A "filth mouth" is telling deliberate lies about people. Ridiculing an
obnoxious lying buffoon isn't.
Tim
2017-09-03 16:18:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by Ted
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit
have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
Indeed. That's by definition of acceleration. If both the speed and
direction are constant, then the acceleration is zero.
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
How can "constant speed change" not be considered as an acceleration?
There must be an acceleration or there wouldn't be a speed change -
constant or not. You're an idiot.
Because it's not variable speed change.
Like I already said, it does not matter if the change is constant or
varying, as long as there is a change then there is acceleration. And the
change can be in magnitude, direction, or both.
You're still an idiot.
And a liar. And fun to ridicule. :)
He's blatantly dishonest, and that makes him ugly considering what he professes to stand for.
I really don't like to ridicule people. But you're right. People like earl are fun to ridicule.
That's an open assessment that he is no Christian. Just a filth mouth.
A "filth mouth" is telling deliberate lies about people. Ridiculing an
obnoxious lying buffoon isn't.
Fat earl is making up excuses and changing the subject so as to avoid the fact that he's an ignoramus.
Ted
2017-09-03 17:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by Ted
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit
have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
Indeed. That's by definition of acceleration. If both the speed and
direction are constant, then the acceleration is zero.
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
How can "constant speed change" not be considered as an acceleration?
There must be an acceleration or there wouldn't be a speed change -
constant or not. You're an idiot.
Because it's not variable speed change.
Like I already said, it does not matter if the change is constant or
varying, as long as there is a change then there is acceleration. And the
change can be in magnitude, direction, or both.
You're still an idiot.
And a liar. And fun to ridicule. :)
He's blatantly dishonest, and that makes him ugly considering what he professes to stand for.
I really don't like to ridicule people. But you're right. People like earl are fun to ridicule.
That's an open assessment that he is no Christian. Just a filth mouth.
A "filth mouth" is telling deliberate lies about people. Ridiculing an
obnoxious lying buffoon isn't.
Fat earl is making up excuses and changing the subject so as to avoid the fact that he's an ignoramus.
Yep, that's one of his standard maneuvers.
Ted
2017-09-01 22:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
Indeed. That's by definition of acceleration. If both the speed and
direction are constant, then the acceleration is zero.
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
Yes, but you're completely clueless. A change in either speed or direction
is a non-zero acceleration.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.
Even in the plotting of a displacement curve, there is no acceleration.
LOL. AA handled this better than I could. See his response. :)
duke
2017-09-02 17:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
Indeed. That's by definition of acceleration. If both the speed and
direction are constant, then the acceleration is zero.
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
Yes, but you're completely clueless. A change in either speed or direction
is a non-zero acceleration.
Only a definition.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.
Even in the plotting of a displacement curve, there is no acceleration.
LOL. AA handled this better than I could. See his response. :)
You don't understand, do you? You've never heard of acceleration of a plotted
curve.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-09-02 20:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
Indeed. That's by definition of acceleration. If both the speed and
direction are constant, then the acceleration is zero.
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
Yes, but you're completely clueless. A change in either speed or direction
is a non-zero acceleration.
Only a definition.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.
Even in the plotting of a displacement curve, there is no acceleration.
LOL. AA handled this better than I could. See his response. :)
You don't understand, do you? You've never heard of acceleration of a plotted
curve.
How did you get it to accelerate? By crinkling it up in a ball and throwing
it?
duke
2017-09-03 14:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
Indeed. That's by definition of acceleration. If both the speed and
direction are constant, then the acceleration is zero.
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
Yes, but you're completely clueless. A change in either speed or direction
is a non-zero acceleration.
Only a definition.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.
Even in the plotting of a displacement curve, there is no acceleration.
LOL. AA handled this better than I could. See his response. :)
You don't understand, do you? You've never heard of acceleration of a plotted
curve.
How did you get it to accelerate? By crinkling it up in a ball and throwing
it?
Now that's about as illiterate as you can get.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-09-03 16:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
Indeed. That's by definition of acceleration. If both the speed and
direction are constant, then the acceleration is zero.
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
Yes, but you're completely clueless. A change in either speed or direction
is a non-zero acceleration.
Only a definition.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.
Even in the plotting of a displacement curve, there is no acceleration.
LOL. AA handled this better than I could. See his response. :)
You don't understand, do you? You've never heard of acceleration of a plotted
curve.
How did you get it to accelerate? By crinkling it up in a ball and throwing
it?
Now that's about as illiterate as you can get.
I agree, if you mean your statement that I was responding to. How else
does a plotted curve accelerate?
duke
2017-09-04 18:04:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
Indeed. That's by definition of acceleration. If both the speed and
direction are constant, then the acceleration is zero.
No, I said constant speed change and constant direction does not have
acceleration.
Yes, but you're completely clueless. A change in either speed or direction
is a non-zero acceleration.
Only a definition.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
He was 100% correct. But you can't even grasp elementary Newtonian
mechanics. So don't bother trying to get relativity.
Yet nothing has changed form the satellite at straight up and 90 degrees to the
side. The X-Y coordinates have rotated 90 degrees with the satellite.
Even in the plotting of a displacement curve, there is no acceleration.
LOL. AA handled this better than I could. See his response. :)
You don't understand, do you? You've never heard of acceleration of a plotted
curve.
How did you get it to accelerate? By crinkling it up in a ball and throwing
it?
Now that's about as illiterate as you can get.
I agree, if you mean your statement that I was responding to. How else
does a plotted curve accelerate?
How is a hammer throw like a satellite?

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-08-31 18:28:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration. You gobblers are eat up with goobers over
definitions.
I have absolutely no idea what "moving objects to constant speed change"
is supposed to mean. "To constant speed change"?

Why don't you give us some clearly defined examples instead?

How about here:







In any event:

"Artificial satellites are continually accelerating towards
the Earth."

-- http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/triple_ocr_gateway/space_for_reflection/satellites_gravity_circular_motion/revision/4/


"a satellite is acted upon by the force of gravity and this
force does accelerate it towards the Earth. In the absence
of gravity a satellite would move in a straight line path
tangent to the Earth."

-- http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/vectors/sat.cfm



"The acceleration of the satellite would be directed towards
the center of the circle - towards the central body that it
is orbiting. And this acceleration is caused by a net force
that is directed inwards in the same direction as the
acceleration."

-- http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites



"It does keep accelerating. Its velocity in the direction of
the object being orbited keeps increasing.

But this direction keeps changing. The reason the
satellite's total speed doesn't increase, at least in the
case of a circular orbit, is that while its velocity towards
the object increases, its tangential motion moves it forward
so that that direction is always perpendicular to the
direction of motion. Thus while the satellite is undergoing
constant acceleration, that acceleration is always
perpendicular to the direction of motion and the speed of
the object never changes."

-- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122284/why-doesnt-an-orbiting-body-keep-accelerating


AtlAxo
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions. The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
AtlAxo
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
It certainly is -- constantly being accelerated toward the Earth's
center of mass. Forever falling.
And it damn well better be, otherwise some very
expensive hardware will suddenly start sailing off in a straight line
towards Alpha Centauri.
AA
the dukester, American-American
*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
the dukester, American-American
*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-08-31 18:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration. You gobblers are eat up with goobers over
definitions.
I have absolutely no idea what "moving objects to constant speed change"
is supposed to mean. "To constant speed change"?
Why don't you give us some clearly defined examples instead?
"Artificial satellites are continually accelerating towards
the Earth."
--
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/triple_ocr_gateway/space_for_reflection/satellites_gravity_circular_motion/revision/4/
"a satellite is acted upon by the force of gravity and this
force does accelerate it towards the Earth. In the absence
of gravity a satellite would move in a straight line path
tangent to the Earth."
-- http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/vectors/sat.cfm
"The acceleration of the satellite would be directed towards
the center of the circle - towards the central body that it
is orbiting. And this acceleration is caused by a net force
that is directed inwards in the same direction as the
acceleration."
--
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites
"It does keep accelerating. Its velocity in the direction of
the object being orbited keeps increasing.
But this direction keeps changing. The reason the
satellite's total speed doesn't increase, at least in the
case of a circular orbit, is that while its velocity towards
the object increases, its tangential motion moves it forward
so that that direction is always perpendicular to the
direction of motion. Thus while the satellite is undergoing
constant acceleration, that acceleration is always
perpendicular to the direction of motion and the speed of
the object never changes."
--
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122284/why-doesnt-an-orbiting-body-keep-accelerating
AtlAxo
Duke claims to be a mechanical engineer. But he knows absolutely nothing
about elementary mechanics.
duke
2017-09-01 21:23:59 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:28:31 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration. You gobblers are eat up with goobers over
definitions.
I have absolutely no idea what "moving objects to constant speed change"
is supposed to mean. "To constant speed change"?
No acceleration.


the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Tim
2017-08-31 18:37:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
LOL! You sure are stupid fat earl.
Post by duke
You gobblers are eat up with goobers over
definitions.
You're illiterate too, you fat smug prick.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions.
You're still an illiterate fool.
Post by duke
The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
Trying to reason with a fat idiot like you is the mistake.
Ted
2017-08-31 18:50:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
LOL! You sure are stupid fat earl.
Post by duke
You gobblers are eat up with goobers over
definitions.
You're illiterate too, you fat smug prick.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions.
You're still an illiterate fool.
Post by duke
The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
Trying to reason with a fat idiot like you is the mistake.
Hey Tim, yer a kewl dude, man, and I owe you a serious apology.
Tim
2017-08-31 18:57:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Tim
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
LOL! You sure are stupid fat earl.
Post by duke
You gobblers are eat up with goobers over
definitions.
You're illiterate too, you fat smug prick.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions.
You're still an illiterate fool.
Post by duke
The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
Trying to reason with a fat idiot like you is the mistake.
Hey Tim, yer a kewl dude, man, and I owe you a serious apology.
No worries, just keep showing earl and mad joe what idiots they are.
Ted
2017-08-31 19:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by Ted
Post by Tim
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
LOL! You sure are stupid fat earl.
Post by duke
You gobblers are eat up with goobers over
definitions.
You're illiterate too, you fat smug prick.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions.
You're still an illiterate fool.
Post by duke
The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
Trying to reason with a fat idiot like you is the mistake.
Hey Tim, yer a kewl dude, man, and I owe you a serious apology.
No worries, just keep showing earl and mad joe what idiots they are.
Thank you, sir! My pleasure. :)
duke
2017-09-03 14:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by Ted
Post by Tim
Post by duke
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
What? Please don't tell me Duke said that a satellite in
Earth orbit isn't undergoing acceleration.
It's not. It's not changing altitude. It's not changing speed.
Acceleration is a vector quantity. Speed and direction.
It's quite common for moving objects to constant speed change and constant
direction and not have acceleration.
LOL! You sure are stupid fat earl.
Post by duke
You gobblers are eat up with goobers over
definitions.
You're illiterate too, you fat smug prick.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
The
satellite is constantly changing direction. If it's not constantly
changing direction, then it's going in a straight line, and the people
who paid tens of millions of dollars to have it put in orbit are
going to be very very very upset.
Of course that's viewed from the usual inertial frame of reference,
the proverbial fixed stars. You are equally welcome to center
your axes at the non-inertial frame of reference, the satellite itself.
Which now means the entire universe is accelerating around the satellite.
Your choice ... but in the second case, you get to do the math.
Thus your acceleration is a misnomer in definitions.
You're still an illiterate fool.
Post by duke
The universe is
accelerating around the satellite. Are you beginning to see your mistake?
Trying to reason with a fat idiot like you is the mistake.
Hey Tim, yer a kewl dude, man, and I owe you a serious apology.
No worries, just keep showing earl and mad joe what idiots they are.
That's just the issue - no meat, all insult.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
duke
2017-08-30 21:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.

Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-08-30 22:17:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s. Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile. But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
duke
2017-08-31 16:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration. You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-08-31 18:20:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
duke
2017-09-01 21:27:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-09-01 22:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Nope, it wasn't. But 0 degrees and 180 degrees were part of my checking that my
approach was correct. Plausibility check: you see if your approach holds true
at the limits.

People who actually work with physics understand this. I'm surprised I
have to explain it to you.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
You did? Great! Then you won't have to draw anything to show
us your method.

So let's see those calculations:

















Aa
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
the dukester, American-American
*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
duke
2017-09-02 17:24:26 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 15:10:07 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Nope, it wasn't. But 0 degrees and 180 degrees were part of my checking that my
approach was correct. Plausibility check: you see if your approach holds true
at the limits.
People who actually work with physics understand this. I'm surprised I
have to explain it to you.
You're playing games in definition and not thinking real world. In engineering,
acceleration is a real issue associated with velocity change. In a satellite
circling the earth, said centripetal acceleration is actually the force of
gravity.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
You did? Great! Then you won't have to draw anything to show
us your method.
Then you never had statics. My mechanics classes were taught with good old
fashion calculations. We didn't use vector analysis, which I assume you did.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
Heeheehee.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-09-02 17:53:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 15:10:07 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Nope, it wasn't. But 0 degrees and 180 degrees were part of my checking that my
approach was correct. Plausibility check: you see if your approach holds true
at the limits.
People who actually work with physics understand this. I'm surprised I
have to explain it to you.
You're playing games in definition and not thinking real world.
As someone who has worked in science all his life, I am fully
aware that the definitions of physics apply to the real world.
Post by duke
In engineering,
acceleration is a real issue associated with velocity change. In a satellite
circling the earth, said centripetal acceleration is actually the force of
gravity.
That is correct. Gravity exerts a force which causes the sateliite's
direction of motion, and thus its velocity, to change constantly.
A change in velocity is nothing more nor less than an acceleration.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
.> >> You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
.> >You did? Great! Then you won't have to draw anything to show
.> >us your method.
.> >So let's see those calculations:
.> Then you never had statics.

"You never had statics" is an answer to "Let's see your calculations"?

Try again. Let's see your calculations:






My mechanics classes were taught with good old
Post by duke
fashion calculations.
We didn't use vector analysis, which I assume you did.
And both should give the same answer, now shouldn't they?

Let's see yours:





AtlAxo
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
Heeheehee.
the dukester, American-American
*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
duke
2017-09-03 15:01:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 10:53:32 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
People who actually work with physics understand this. I'm surprised I
have to explain it to you.
You're playing games in definition and not thinking real world.
As someone who has worked in science all his life, I am fully
aware that the definitions of physics apply to the real world.
Post by duke
In engineering,
acceleration is a real issue associated with velocity change. In a satellite
circling the earth, said centripetal acceleration is actually the force of
gravity.
That is correct. Gravity exerts a force which causes the sateliite's
direction of motion, and thus its velocity, to change constantly.
A change in velocity is nothing more nor less than an acceleration.
And a definition. That's what I keep saying.

I tried to interject the concept of the second derivative measures how the rate
of change of a quantity is itself changing; for example, the second derivative
of the position of a vehicle with respect to time.

That one sailed right over teddie the fairy's head. He insisted a constant rate
of velocity change is accelerating.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
My mechanics classes were taught with good old
Post by duke
fashion calculations.
Sum(Fx) = 0
Sum(Fy) = 0
Sum(Mxy) = 0
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
We didn't use vector analysis, which I assume you did.
And both should give the same answer, now shouldn't they?
And they did, but teddie the fairy jumped at one of your comments where he
concluded that the tension in the 2 ropes was W/2. I gigged him with a great
laughter and the next post he changed it to the vertical was W/2.


the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-09-03 15:39:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 10:53:32 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
People who actually work with physics understand this. I'm surprised I
have to explain it to you.
You're playing games in definition and not thinking real world.
As someone who has worked in science all his life, I am fully
aware that the definitions of physics apply to the real world.
Post by duke
In engineering,
acceleration is a real issue associated with velocity change. In a satellite
circling the earth, said centripetal acceleration is actually the force of
gravity.
That is correct. Gravity exerts a force which causes the sateliite's
direction of motion, and thus its velocity, to change constantly.
A change in velocity is nothing more nor less than an acceleration.
And a definition. That's what I keep saying.
You keep saying that the satellite's behavior matches the
definition of acceleration? Good. Then it is undergoing acceleration.
By definition. DIscussion over.
Post by duke
I tried to interject the concept of the second derivative measures how the rate
of change of a quantity is itself changing; for example, the second derivative
of the position of a vehicle with respect to time.
Yes, the second derivative of position with respect to time is
acceleration. Something I brought up two days ago, and you didn't
understand. You know, that bit with taking derivatives of vector quantities,
which requires expressing it in terms of the unit vectors i, j, and k?

Remember that now?

And since the direction components of the vectors are constantly
changing, then the satellite is accelerating. This is high school
physics. Why you can't grasp it, I have no idea.
Post by duke
That one sailed right over teddie the fairy's head. He insisted a constant rate
of velocity change is accelerating.
Any rate of change in velocity, constant or otherwise, is acceleration. That's what
acceleration is. He is correct.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
My mechanics classes were taught with good old
Post by duke
fashion calculations.
Sum(Fx) = 0
Sum(Fy) = 0
Sum(Mxy) = 0
That's the fundamentals.

Now show us how you applied it to the original question.

Show your numerical answer,
Then show how you used these identities to arrive at that answer.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
We didn't use vector analysis, which I assume you did.
And both should give the same answer, now shouldn't they?
And they did,
We don't know that because you have yet to give your
numerical answer.

Ready to do that now?

but teddie the fairy jumped at one of your comments where he
Post by duke
concluded that the tension in the 2 ropes was W/2. I gigged him with a great
laughter and the next post he changed it to the vertical was W/2.
You're either lying or bewildered. Both he and I brought up
that original post and showed that he was correct.

Lying or confused. You choose.

AA
Ted
2017-09-03 16:10:24 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 08:39:25 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 10:53:32 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
People who actually work with physics understand this. I'm surprised I
have to explain it to you.
You're playing games in definition and not thinking real world.
As someone who has worked in science all his life, I am fully
aware that the definitions of physics apply to the real world.
Post by duke
In engineering,
acceleration is a real issue associated with velocity change. In a satellite
circling the earth, said centripetal acceleration is actually the force of
gravity.
That is correct. Gravity exerts a force which causes the sateliite's
direction of motion, and thus its velocity, to change constantly.
A change in velocity is nothing more nor less than an acceleration.
And a definition. That's what I keep saying.
You keep saying that the satellite's behavior matches the
definition of acceleration? Good. Then it is undergoing acceleration.
By definition. DIscussion over.
Post by duke
I tried to interject the concept of the second derivative measures how the rate
of change of a quantity is itself changing; for example, the second derivative
of the position of a vehicle with respect to time.
Yes, the second derivative of position with respect to time is
acceleration. Something I brought up two days ago, and you didn't
understand. You know, that bit with taking derivatives of vector quantities,
which requires expressing it in terms of the unit vectors i, j, and k?
Remember that now?
And since the direction components of the vectors are constantly
changing, then the satellite is accelerating. This is high school
physics. Why you can't grasp it, I have no idea.
Post by duke
That one sailed right over teddie the fairy's head. He insisted a constant rate
of velocity change is accelerating.
Any rate of change in velocity, constant or otherwise, is acceleration. That's what
acceleration is. He is correct.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
My mechanics classes were taught with good old
Post by duke
fashion calculations.
Sum(Fx) = 0
Sum(Fy) = 0
Sum(Mxy) = 0
That's the fundamentals.
Yep. That's where you start. He at least knows that much.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Now show us how you applied it to the original question.
Show your numerical answer,
Then show how you used these identities to arrive at that answer.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
We didn't use vector analysis, which I assume you did.
And both should give the same answer, now shouldn't they?
And they did,
We don't know that because you have yet to give your
numerical answer.
Ready to do that now?
but teddie the fairy jumped at one of your comments where he
Post by duke
concluded that the tension in the 2 ropes was W/2. I gigged him with a great
laughter and the next post he changed it to the vertical was W/2.
You're either lying or bewildered. Both he and I brought up
that original post and showed that he was correct.
Lying or confused. You choose.
AA
Here's duke's response to the post in question. It speaks for itself:

http://tinyurl.com/y9tw4y4x
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-09-03 16:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 08:39:25 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 10:53:32 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
People who actually work with physics understand this. I'm surprised I
have to explain it to you.
You're playing games in definition and not thinking real world.
As someone who has worked in science all his life, I am fully
aware that the definitions of physics apply to the real world.
Post by duke
In engineering,
acceleration is a real issue associated with velocity change. In a satellite
circling the earth, said centripetal acceleration is actually the force of
gravity.
That is correct. Gravity exerts a force which causes the sateliite's
direction of motion, and thus its velocity, to change constantly.
A change in velocity is nothing more nor less than an acceleration.
And a definition. That's what I keep saying.
You keep saying that the satellite's behavior matches the
definition of acceleration? Good. Then it is undergoing acceleration.
By definition. DIscussion over.
Post by duke
I tried to interject the concept of the second derivative measures how the rate
of change of a quantity is itself changing; for example, the second derivative
of the position of a vehicle with respect to time.
Yes, the second derivative of position with respect to time is
acceleration. Something I brought up two days ago, and you didn't
understand. You know, that bit with taking derivatives of vector quantities,
which requires expressing it in terms of the unit vectors i, j, and k?
Remember that now?
And since the direction components of the vectors are constantly
changing, then the satellite is accelerating. This is high school
physics. Why you can't grasp it, I have no idea.
Post by duke
That one sailed right over teddie the fairy's head. He insisted a constant rate
of velocity change is accelerating.
Any rate of change in velocity, constant or otherwise, is acceleration. That's what
acceleration is. He is correct.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
My mechanics classes were taught with good old
Post by duke
fashion calculations.
Sum(Fx) = 0
Sum(Fy) = 0
Sum(Mxy) = 0
That's the fundamentals.
Yep. That's where you start. He at least knows that much.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Now show us how you applied it to the original question.
Show your numerical answer,
Then show how you used these identities to arrive at that answer.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
We didn't use vector analysis, which I assume you did.
And both should give the same answer, now shouldn't they?
And they did,
We don't know that because you have yet to give your
numerical answer.
Ready to do that now?
but teddie the fairy jumped at one of your comments where he
Post by duke
concluded that the tension in the 2 ropes was W/2. I gigged him with a great
laughter and the next post he changed it to the vertical was W/2.
You're either lying or bewildered. Both he and I brought up
that original post and showed that he was correct.
Lying or confused. You choose.
AA
http://tinyurl.com/y9tw4y4x
Yep. You've pointed this out, I've pointed it out; Duke doesn't care.

This is the point where, if you were Joe Bruno, you'd be telling Duke:

YOU CAN"T READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AA
Ted
2017-09-03 17:12:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:15:22 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 08:39:25 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 10:53:32 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
People who actually work with physics understand this. I'm surprised I
have to explain it to you.
You're playing games in definition and not thinking real world.
As someone who has worked in science all his life, I am fully
aware that the definitions of physics apply to the real world.
Post by duke
In engineering,
acceleration is a real issue associated with velocity change. In a satellite
circling the earth, said centripetal acceleration is actually the force of
gravity.
That is correct. Gravity exerts a force which causes the sateliite's
direction of motion, and thus its velocity, to change constantly.
A change in velocity is nothing more nor less than an acceleration.
And a definition. That's what I keep saying.
You keep saying that the satellite's behavior matches the
definition of acceleration? Good. Then it is undergoing acceleration.
By definition. DIscussion over.
Post by duke
I tried to interject the concept of the second derivative measures how the rate
of change of a quantity is itself changing; for example, the second derivative
of the position of a vehicle with respect to time.
Yes, the second derivative of position with respect to time is
acceleration. Something I brought up two days ago, and you didn't
understand. You know, that bit with taking derivatives of vector quantities,
which requires expressing it in terms of the unit vectors i, j, and k?
Remember that now?
And since the direction components of the vectors are constantly
changing, then the satellite is accelerating. This is high school
physics. Why you can't grasp it, I have no idea.
Post by duke
That one sailed right over teddie the fairy's head. He insisted a constant rate
of velocity change is accelerating.
Any rate of change in velocity, constant or otherwise, is acceleration. That's what
acceleration is. He is correct.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
My mechanics classes were taught with good old
Post by duke
fashion calculations.
Sum(Fx) = 0
Sum(Fy) = 0
Sum(Mxy) = 0
That's the fundamentals.
Yep. That's where you start. He at least knows that much.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Now show us how you applied it to the original question.
Show your numerical answer,
Then show how you used these identities to arrive at that answer.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
We didn't use vector analysis, which I assume you did.
And both should give the same answer, now shouldn't they?
And they did,
We don't know that because you have yet to give your
numerical answer.
Ready to do that now?
but teddie the fairy jumped at one of your comments where he
Post by duke
concluded that the tension in the 2 ropes was W/2. I gigged him with a great
laughter and the next post he changed it to the vertical was W/2.
You're either lying or bewildered. Both he and I brought up
that original post and showed that he was correct.
Lying or confused. You choose.
AA
http://tinyurl.com/y9tw4y4x
Yep. You've pointed this out, I've pointed it out; Duke doesn't care.
YOU CAN"T READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AA
LOL. Very true, except that Joe wouldn't say that to Duke, because
they're buds. :)
duke
2017-09-04 18:13:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 08:39:25 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 10:53:32 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
People who actually work with physics understand this. I'm surprised I
have to explain it to you.
You're playing games in definition and not thinking real world.
As someone who has worked in science all his life, I am fully
aware that the definitions of physics apply to the real world.
Post by duke
In engineering,
acceleration is a real issue associated with velocity change. In a satellite
circling the earth, said centripetal acceleration is actually the force of
gravity.
That is correct. Gravity exerts a force which causes the sateliite's
direction of motion, and thus its velocity, to change constantly.
A change in velocity is nothing more nor less than an acceleration.
And a definition. That's what I keep saying.
You keep saying that the satellite's behavior matches the
definition of acceleration? Good. Then it is undergoing acceleration.
By definition. DIscussion over.
A force is holding it in place.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
I tried to interject the concept of the second derivative measures how the rate
of change of a quantity is itself changing; for example, the second derivative
of the position of a vehicle with respect to time.
Yes, the second derivative of position with respect to time is
acceleration. Something I brought up two days ago, and you didn't
understand. You know, that bit with taking derivatives of vector quantities,
which requires expressing it in terms of the unit vectors i, j, and k?
Of course I understood. What I didn't get is your vector notation.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Remember that now?
And since the direction components of the vectors are constantly
changing, then the satellite is accelerating. This is high school
physics. Why you can't grasp it, I have no idea.
When does an acceleration become a circling?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
That one sailed right over teddie the fairy's head. He insisted a constant rate
of velocity change is accelerating.
Any rate of change in velocity, constant or otherwise, is acceleration. That's what
acceleration is. He is correct.
It a game playing with a definition. Gravity is a force.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
My mechanics classes were taught with good old
Post by duke
fashion calculations.
Sum(Fx) = 0
Sum(Fy) = 0
Sum(Mxy) = 0
That's the fundamentals.
I know.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Now show us how you applied it to the original question.
The same way.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Show your numerical answer,
Then show how you used these identities to arrive at that answer.
When you resolve the x and y loads on the rope, the tension is evident in the
hypotenuse. Don't you know trig?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
We didn't use vector analysis, which I assume you did.
And both should give the same answer, now shouldn't they?
And they did,
We don't know that because you have yet to give your
numerical answer.
Ready to do that now?
but teddie the fairy jumped at one of your comments where he
Post by duke
concluded that the tension in the 2 ropes was W/2. I gigged him with a great
laughter and the next post he changed it to the vertical was W/2.
You're either lying or bewildered. Both he and I brought up
that original post and showed that he was correct.
Lying or confused. You choose.
I made sure he said the tension was W/2. I couldn't believe he was that stupid.
He next post confirmed his error - somebody pointed it out to him.


the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-09-04 19:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 08:39:25 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 10:53:32 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
People who actually work with physics understand this. I'm surprised I
have to explain it to you.
You're playing games in definition and not thinking real world.
As someone who has worked in science all his life, I am fully
aware that the definitions of physics apply to the real world.
Post by duke
In engineering,
acceleration is a real issue associated with velocity change. In a satellite
circling the earth, said centripetal acceleration is actually the force of
gravity.
That is correct. Gravity exerts a force which causes the sateliite's
direction of motion, and thus its velocity, to change constantly.
A change in velocity is nothing more nor less than an acceleration.
And a definition. That's what I keep saying.
You keep saying that the satellite's behavior matches the
definition of acceleration? Good. Then it is undergoing acceleration.
By definition. DIscussion over.
A force is holding it in place.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
I tried to interject the concept of the second derivative measures how the rate
of change of a quantity is itself changing; for example, the second derivative
of the position of a vehicle with respect to time.
Yes, the second derivative of position with respect to time is
acceleration. Something I brought up two days ago, and you didn't
understand. You know, that bit with taking derivatives of vector quantities,
which requires expressing it in terms of the unit vectors i, j, and k?
Of course I understood. What I didn't get is your vector notation.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Remember that now?
And since the direction components of the vectors are constantly
changing, then the satellite is accelerating. This is high school
physics. Why you can't grasp it, I have no idea.
When does an acceleration become a circling?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
That one sailed right over teddie the fairy's head. He insisted a constant rate
of velocity change is accelerating.
Any rate of change in velocity, constant or otherwise, is acceleration. That's what
acceleration is. He is correct.
It a game playing with a definition. Gravity is a force.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
My mechanics classes were taught with good old
Post by duke
fashion calculations.
Sum(Fx) = 0
Sum(Fy) = 0
Sum(Mxy) = 0
That's the fundamentals.
I know.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Now show us how you applied it to the original question.
The same way.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Show your numerical answer,
Then show how you used these identities to arrive at that answer.
When you resolve the x and y loads on the rope, the tension is evident in the
hypotenuse. Don't you know trig?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
We didn't use vector analysis, which I assume you did.
And both should give the same answer, now shouldn't they?
And they did,
We don't know that because you have yet to give your
numerical answer.
Ready to do that now?
but teddie the fairy jumped at one of your comments where he
Post by duke
concluded that the tension in the 2 ropes was W/2. I gigged him with a great
laughter and the next post he changed it to the vertical was W/2.
You're either lying or bewildered. Both he and I brought up
that original post and showed that he was correct.
Lying or confused. You choose.
I made sure he said the tension was W/2. I couldn't believe he was that stupid.
He next post confirmed his error - somebody pointed it out to him.
The truth is crystal clear, Duke. In summary:

Duke didn't know what "vertical component" means, and when he realized he
made an ass of himself, he simply began lying about what Ted said.

Ted: "the tension's vertical component would be W/2."

Duke: "That's not the tension in the ropes, stupid ass." (August 30)
http://tinyurl.com/y9tw4y4x

Duke: "You tried to say that the vertical component of tension in the rope
was W/2." (August 31) http://tinyurl.com/y7jzk447

Duke: "You didn't say "vertical" first, you said rope tension first = W/2."
(September 2) http://tinyurl.com/y84bstq5
Ted
2017-09-03 16:08:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 10:53:32 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
People who actually work with physics understand this. I'm surprised I
have to explain it to you.
You're playing games in definition and not thinking real world.
As someone who has worked in science all his life, I am fully
aware that the definitions of physics apply to the real world.
Post by duke
In engineering,
acceleration is a real issue associated with velocity change. In a satellite
circling the earth, said centripetal acceleration is actually the force of
gravity.
That is correct. Gravity exerts a force which causes the sateliite's
direction of motion, and thus its velocity, to change constantly.
A change in velocity is nothing more nor less than an acceleration.
And a definition. That's what I keep saying.
I tried to interject the concept of the second derivative measures how the rate
of change of a quantity is itself changing; for example, the second derivative
of the position of a vehicle with respect to time.
That one sailed right over teddie the fairy's head. He insisted a constant rate
of velocity change is accelerating.
Uh huh. It's constant acceleration. By definition.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
My mechanics classes were taught with good old
Post by duke
fashion calculations.
Sum(Fx) = 0
Sum(Fy) = 0
Sum(Mxy) = 0
That's a good first step, you're right. Then what?
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
We didn't use vector analysis, which I assume you did.
And both should give the same answer, now shouldn't they?
And they did, but teddie the fairy jumped at one of your comments where he
concluded that the tension in the 2 ropes was W/2. I gigged him with a great
laughter and the next post he changed it to the vertical was W/2.
This is your response to my first mention of W/2. It speaks for
itself:
http://tinyurl.com/y9tw4y4x

If you disagree, then please show us an older post (or any post)
wherein I said what you claim I said.
Ted
2017-09-02 20:33:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 15:10:07 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Nope, it wasn't. But 0 degrees and 180 degrees were part of my checking that my
approach was correct. Plausibility check: you see if your approach holds true
at the limits.
People who actually work with physics understand this. I'm surprised I
have to explain it to you.
You're playing games in definition and not thinking real world. In engineering,
acceleration is a real issue associated with velocity change. In a satellite
circling the earth, said centripetal acceleration is actually the force of
gravity.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
You did? Great! Then you won't have to draw anything to show
us your method.
Then you never had statics. My mechanics classes were taught with good old
fashion calculations. We didn't use vector analysis, which I assume you did.
Which textbooks did you use?
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-09-01 22:12:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.

One is the force due to gravity.

The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.

The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.

Equal and opposite forces. They cancel.

There is no such force opposing the pull of gravity experienced
by the satellite. So it accelerates forever around the earth.

And you're lucky that both you and the floor are made of fermions
and not bosons. Pauli exclusion does not apply to bosons. You'd
accelerate straight through to the center of the earth. Accelerating
unimpeded forever, just like our satellite.

AA
Ted
2017-09-01 22:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
Equal and opposite forces. They cancel.
There is no such force opposing the pull of gravity experienced
by the satellite. So it accelerates forever around the earth.
And you're lucky that both you and the floor are made of fermions
and not bosons. Pauli exclusion does not apply to bosons. You'd
accelerate straight through to the center of the earth. Accelerating
unimpeded forever, just like our satellite.
AA
At last, somebody here who knows a lot more physics than I do. I've been
tempted to cross-post to sci.physics, but now I won't have to.
Ted
2017-09-01 23:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
Equal and opposite forces. They cancel.
There is no such force opposing the pull of gravity experienced
by the satellite. So it accelerates forever around the earth.
And you're lucky that both you and the floor are made of fermions
and not bosons. Pauli exclusion does not apply to bosons. You'd
accelerate straight through to the center of the earth. Accelerating
unimpeded forever, just like our satellite.
AA
At last, somebody here who knows a lot more physics than I do. I've been
tempted to cross-post to sci.physics, but now I won't have to.
Oops. I wanna add that Vincent and Siri also may know more physics than I
do, but so far, AA is the only one who's demonstrated it beyond doubt.

AA:Ted::Ted:Duke
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-09-01 23:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
Equal and opposite forces. They cancel.
There is no such force opposing the pull of gravity experienced
by the satellite. So it accelerates forever around the earth.
And you're lucky that both you and the floor are made of fermions
and not bosons. Pauli exclusion does not apply to bosons. You'd
accelerate straight through to the center of the earth. Accelerating
unimpeded forever, just like our satellite.
AA
At last, somebody here who knows a lot more physics than I do. I've been
tempted to cross-post to sci.physics, but now I won't have to.
Oh, I doubt that I actually do know more than you do. Maybe some
esoteric bits like the Pauli exclusion principle, but that's interesting
to me because it explains the structure of the orbitals of the atoms,
and by doing so makes sense of the entire Periodic Table.

And as I was a chemist in a past life -- or at least in the past century --
that was of interest to me. One of those (relatively) simple insights
that explained so many things.


AA
Ted
2017-09-01 23:36:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
Equal and opposite forces. They cancel.
There is no such force opposing the pull of gravity experienced
by the satellite. So it accelerates forever around the earth.
And you're lucky that both you and the floor are made of fermions
and not bosons. Pauli exclusion does not apply to bosons. You'd
accelerate straight through to the center of the earth. Accelerating
unimpeded forever, just like our satellite.
AA
At last, somebody here who knows a lot more physics than I do. I've been
tempted to cross-post to sci.physics, but now I won't have to.
Oh, I doubt that I actually do know more than you do. Maybe some
LOL. I'm sure that you know more about everything than I do. I've read your
posts in other threads too.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
esoteric bits like the Pauli exclusion principle, but that's interesting
to me because it explains the structure of the orbitals of the atoms,
and by doing so makes sense of the entire Periodic Table.
And as I was a chemist in a past life -- or at least in the past century --
that was of interest to me. One of those (relatively) simple insights
that explained so many things.
AA
Yes, I can guess it would make a difference in one's understanding of
chemical bonds at some advanced level of chemistry well beyond what I've
ever studied. (intro inorganic, organic, biochem, radchem)
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-09-02 00:10:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
Equal and opposite forces. They cancel.
There is no such force opposing the pull of gravity experienced
by the satellite. So it accelerates forever around the earth.
And you're lucky that both you and the floor are made of fermions
and not bosons. Pauli exclusion does not apply to bosons. You'd
accelerate straight through to the center of the earth. Accelerating
unimpeded forever, just like our satellite.
AA
At last, somebody here who knows a lot more physics than I do. I've been
tempted to cross-post to sci.physics, but now I won't have to.
Oh, I doubt that I actually do know more than you do. Maybe some
LOL. I'm sure that you know more about everything than I do. I've read your
posts in other threads too.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
esoteric bits like the Pauli exclusion principle, but that's interesting
to me because it explains the structure of the orbitals of the atoms,
and by doing so makes sense of the entire Periodic Table.
And as I was a chemist in a past life -- or at least in the past century --
that was of interest to me. One of those (relatively) simple insights
that explained so many things.
AA
Yes, I can guess it would make a difference in one's understanding of
chemical bonds at some advanced level of chemistry well beyond what I've
ever studied. (intro inorganic, organic, biochem, radchem)
Well, to those who do esoteric things like molecular orbital theory
and computational chemistry -- not me! -- but at a simpler wordy level
it just shows why the electrons in an atom fall into the orbitals they
do. For example, given that no two electrons in an atom can have
all four quantum numbers the same, it means that only two electrons
can share one orbital -- one spin up and one spin down. So electrons
come in pairs, and at a very simple level that explains covalent bonds.


AA
Ted
2017-09-02 00:40:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit
have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
Equal and opposite forces. They cancel.
There is no such force opposing the pull of gravity experienced
by the satellite. So it accelerates forever around the earth.
And you're lucky that both you and the floor are made of fermions
and not bosons. Pauli exclusion does not apply to bosons. You'd
accelerate straight through to the center of the earth. Accelerating
unimpeded forever, just like our satellite.
AA
At last, somebody here who knows a lot more physics than I do. I've been
tempted to cross-post to sci.physics, but now I won't have to.
Oh, I doubt that I actually do know more than you do. Maybe some
LOL. I'm sure that you know more about everything than I do. I've read your
posts in other threads too.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
esoteric bits like the Pauli exclusion principle, but that's interesting
to me because it explains the structure of the orbitals of the atoms,
and by doing so makes sense of the entire Periodic Table.
And as I was a chemist in a past life -- or at least in the past century --
that was of interest to me. One of those (relatively) simple insights
that explained so many things.
AA
Yes, I can guess it would make a difference in one's understanding of
chemical bonds at some advanced level of chemistry well beyond what I've
ever studied. (intro inorganic, organic, biochem, radchem)
Well, to those who do esoteric things like molecular orbital theory
and computational chemistry -- not me! -- but at a simpler wordy level
it just shows why the electrons in an atom fall into the orbitals they
do. For example, given that no two electrons in an atom can have
all four quantum numbers the same, it means that only two electrons
can share one orbital -- one spin up and one spin down. So electrons
come in pairs, and at a very simple level that explains covalent bonds.
AA
That certainly rings a bell. And a memory that's just out of reach, but I
dunno where from.

My main philosophical take-away from the ochem classes i took was that
everything always runs downhill. Learn the groups well and you know what
they're gonna do in any given situation.
duke
2017-09-03 15:11:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit
have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
Equal and opposite forces. They cancel.
There is no such force opposing the pull of gravity experienced
by the satellite. So it accelerates forever around the earth.
And you're lucky that both you and the floor are made of fermions
and not bosons. Pauli exclusion does not apply to bosons. You'd
accelerate straight through to the center of the earth. Accelerating
unimpeded forever, just like our satellite.
AA
At last, somebody here who knows a lot more physics than I do. I've been
tempted to cross-post to sci.physics, but now I won't have to.
Oh, I doubt that I actually do know more than you do. Maybe some
LOL. I'm sure that you know more about everything than I do. I've read your
posts in other threads too.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
esoteric bits like the Pauli exclusion principle, but that's interesting
to me because it explains the structure of the orbitals of the atoms,
and by doing so makes sense of the entire Periodic Table.
And as I was a chemist in a past life -- or at least in the past century --
that was of interest to me. One of those (relatively) simple insights
that explained so many things.
AA
Yes, I can guess it would make a difference in one's understanding of
chemical bonds at some advanced level of chemistry well beyond what I've
ever studied. (intro inorganic, organic, biochem, radchem)
Well, to those who do esoteric things like molecular orbital theory
and computational chemistry -- not me! -- but at a simpler wordy level
it just shows why the electrons in an atom fall into the orbitals they
do. For example, given that no two electrons in an atom can have
all four quantum numbers the same, it means that only two electrons
can share one orbital -- one spin up and one spin down. So electrons
come in pairs, and at a very simple level that explains covalent bonds.
AA
That certainly rings a bell. And a memory that's just out of reach, but I
dunno where from.
So speaks a D high school student.
Post by Ted
My main philosophical take-away from the ochem classes i took was that
everything always runs downhill. Learn the groups well and you know what
they're gonna do in any given situation.
I didn't take high school Chemistry, but even I understood that water runs
downhill. Haahaahaa.

What a bullshit artist.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-09-03 16:14:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit
have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
Equal and opposite forces. They cancel.
There is no such force opposing the pull of gravity experienced
by the satellite. So it accelerates forever around the earth.
And you're lucky that both you and the floor are made of fermions
and not bosons. Pauli exclusion does not apply to bosons. You'd
accelerate straight through to the center of the earth. Accelerating
unimpeded forever, just like our satellite.
AA
At last, somebody here who knows a lot more physics than I do. I've been
tempted to cross-post to sci.physics, but now I won't have to.
Oh, I doubt that I actually do know more than you do. Maybe some
LOL. I'm sure that you know more about everything than I do. I've read your
posts in other threads too.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
esoteric bits like the Pauli exclusion principle, but that's interesting
to me because it explains the structure of the orbitals of the atoms,
and by doing so makes sense of the entire Periodic Table.
And as I was a chemist in a past life -- or at least in the past century --
that was of interest to me. One of those (relatively) simple insights
that explained so many things.
AA
Yes, I can guess it would make a difference in one's understanding of
chemical bonds at some advanced level of chemistry well beyond what I've
ever studied. (intro inorganic, organic, biochem, radchem)
Well, to those who do esoteric things like molecular orbital theory
and computational chemistry -- not me! -- but at a simpler wordy level
it just shows why the electrons in an atom fall into the orbitals they
do. For example, given that no two electrons in an atom can have
all four quantum numbers the same, it means that only two electrons
can share one orbital -- one spin up and one spin down. So electrons
come in pairs, and at a very simple level that explains covalent bonds.
AA
That certainly rings a bell. And a memory that's just out of reach, but I
dunno where from.
So speaks a D high school student.
True.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
My main philosophical take-away from the ochem classes i took was that
everything always runs downhill. Learn the groups well and you know what
they're gonna do in any given situation.
I didn't take high school Chemistry, but even I understood that water runs
downhill. Haahaahaa.
I was referring to college chemistry. But why would a math and physics
major take all those chemistry classes, you may be thinking (well, not
really).
duke
2017-09-03 15:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
Equal and opposite forces. They cancel.
There is no such force opposing the pull of gravity experienced
by the satellite. So it accelerates forever around the earth.
And you're lucky that both you and the floor are made of fermions
and not bosons. Pauli exclusion does not apply to bosons. You'd
accelerate straight through to the center of the earth. Accelerating
unimpeded forever, just like our satellite.
AA
At last, somebody here who knows a lot more physics than I do. I've been
tempted to cross-post to sci.physics, but now I won't have to.
Oh, I doubt that I actually do know more than you do. Maybe some
LOL. I'm sure that you know more about everything than I do. I've read your
posts in other threads too.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
esoteric bits like the Pauli exclusion principle, but that's interesting
to me because it explains the structure of the orbitals of the atoms,
and by doing so makes sense of the entire Periodic Table.
And as I was a chemist in a past life -- or at least in the past century --
that was of interest to me. One of those (relatively) simple insights
that explained so many things.
AA
Yes, I can guess it would make a difference in one's understanding of
chemical bonds at some advanced level of chemistry well beyond what I've
ever studied. (intro inorganic, organic, biochem, radchem)
Haahaahaa. Here we have a D high school student who was accepted into college,
taught in college and now dropping big words as inorganic, organic, biochem and
radchem.


the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-09-03 15:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
Equal and opposite forces. They cancel.
There is no such force opposing the pull of gravity experienced
by the satellite. So it accelerates forever around the earth.
And you're lucky that both you and the floor are made of fermions
and not bosons. Pauli exclusion does not apply to bosons. You'd
accelerate straight through to the center of the earth. Accelerating
unimpeded forever, just like our satellite.
AA
At last, somebody here who knows a lot more physics than I do. I've been
tempted to cross-post to sci.physics, but now I won't have to.
Oh, I doubt that I actually do know more than you do. Maybe some
LOL. I'm sure that you know more about everything than I do. I've read your
posts in other threads too.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
esoteric bits like the Pauli exclusion principle, but that's interesting
to me because it explains the structure of the orbitals of the atoms,
and by doing so makes sense of the entire Periodic Table.
And as I was a chemist in a past life -- or at least in the past century --
that was of interest to me. One of those (relatively) simple insights
that explained so many things.
AA
Yes, I can guess it would make a difference in one's understanding of
chemical bonds at some advanced level of chemistry well beyond what I've
ever studied. (intro inorganic, organic, biochem, radchem)
Haahaahaa. Here we have a D high school student who was accepted into college,
taught in college and now dropping big words as inorganic, organic, biochem and
radchem.
Where I come from -- you know, the practice of science -- those are everyday words.

If they seem like "big words" to you, then that says something about
you, not Ted.

Oh, and that "D high school student" business? That's lying. Do you bring up this
sort of behavior in the confessional?

AA
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-09-03 16:17:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 08:20:34 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
Equal and opposite forces. They cancel.
There is no such force opposing the pull of gravity experienced
by the satellite. So it accelerates forever around the earth.
And you're lucky that both you and the floor are made of fermions
and not bosons. Pauli exclusion does not apply to bosons. You'd
accelerate straight through to the center of the earth. Accelerating
unimpeded forever, just like our satellite.
AA
At last, somebody here who knows a lot more physics than I do. I've been
tempted to cross-post to sci.physics, but now I won't have to.
Oh, I doubt that I actually do know more than you do. Maybe some
LOL. I'm sure that you know more about everything than I do. I've read your
posts in other threads too.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
esoteric bits like the Pauli exclusion principle, but that's interesting
to me because it explains the structure of the orbitals of the atoms,
and by doing so makes sense of the entire Periodic Table.
And as I was a chemist in a past life -- or at least in the past century --
that was of interest to me. One of those (relatively) simple insights
that explained so many things.
AA
Yes, I can guess it would make a difference in one's understanding of
chemical bonds at some advanced level of chemistry well beyond what I've
ever studied. (intro inorganic, organic, biochem, radchem)
Haahaahaa. Here we have a D high school student who was accepted into college,
taught in college and now dropping big words as inorganic, organic, biochem and
radchem.
Where I come from -- you know, the practice of science -- those are everyday words.
If they seem like "big words" to you, then that says something about
you, not Ted.
Oh, and that "D high school student" business? That's lying. Do you bring up this
sort of behavior in the confessional?
AA
Actually, I truthfully told duke that I got mostly D grades in HS
(leaving out the part that my SAT math score was 780 and my overall
GPAs after that were all >3.7.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-09-03 17:20:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 08:20:34 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
Equal and opposite forces. They cancel.
There is no such force opposing the pull of gravity experienced
by the satellite. So it accelerates forever around the earth.
And you're lucky that both you and the floor are made of fermions
and not bosons. Pauli exclusion does not apply to bosons. You'd
accelerate straight through to the center of the earth. Accelerating
unimpeded forever, just like our satellite.
AA
At last, somebody here who knows a lot more physics than I do. I've been
tempted to cross-post to sci.physics, but now I won't have to.
Oh, I doubt that I actually do know more than you do. Maybe some
LOL. I'm sure that you know more about everything than I do. I've read your
posts in other threads too.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
esoteric bits like the Pauli exclusion principle, but that's interesting
to me because it explains the structure of the orbitals of the atoms,
and by doing so makes sense of the entire Periodic Table.
And as I was a chemist in a past life -- or at least in the past century --
that was of interest to me. One of those (relatively) simple insights
that explained so many things.
AA
Yes, I can guess it would make a difference in one's understanding of
chemical bonds at some advanced level of chemistry well beyond what I've
ever studied. (intro inorganic, organic, biochem, radchem)
Haahaahaa. Here we have a D high school student who was accepted into college,
taught in college and now dropping big words as inorganic, organic, biochem and
radchem.
Where I come from -- you know, the practice of science -- those are everyday words.
If they seem like "big words" to you, then that says something about
you, not Ted.
Oh, and that "D high school student" business? That's lying. Do you bring up this
sort of behavior in the confessional?
AA
Actually, I truthfully told duke that I got mostly D grades in HS
(leaving out the part that my SAT math score was 780 and my overall
GPAs after that were all >3.7.
Oh? Well then, I shall apologize when it comes up again.

Atlatl
Ted
2017-09-03 18:23:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 10:20:11 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 08:20:34 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
Equal and opposite forces. They cancel.
There is no such force opposing the pull of gravity experienced
by the satellite. So it accelerates forever around the earth.
And you're lucky that both you and the floor are made of fermions
and not bosons. Pauli exclusion does not apply to bosons. You'd
accelerate straight through to the center of the earth. Accelerating
unimpeded forever, just like our satellite.
AA
At last, somebody here who knows a lot more physics than I do. I've been
tempted to cross-post to sci.physics, but now I won't have to.
Oh, I doubt that I actually do know more than you do. Maybe some
LOL. I'm sure that you know more about everything than I do. I've read your
posts in other threads too.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
esoteric bits like the Pauli exclusion principle, but that's interesting
to me because it explains the structure of the orbitals of the atoms,
and by doing so makes sense of the entire Periodic Table.
And as I was a chemist in a past life -- or at least in the past century --
that was of interest to me. One of those (relatively) simple insights
that explained so many things.
AA
Yes, I can guess it would make a difference in one's understanding of
chemical bonds at some advanced level of chemistry well beyond what I've
ever studied. (intro inorganic, organic, biochem, radchem)
Haahaahaa. Here we have a D high school student who was accepted into college,
taught in college and now dropping big words as inorganic, organic, biochem and
radchem.
Where I come from -- you know, the practice of science -- those are everyday words.
If they seem like "big words" to you, then that says something about
you, not Ted.
Oh, and that "D high school student" business? That's lying. Do you bring up this
sort of behavior in the confessional?
AA
Actually, I truthfully told duke that I got mostly D grades in HS
(leaving out the part that my SAT math score was 780 and my overall
GPAs after that were all >3.7.
Oh? Well then, I shall apologize when it comes up again.
Atlatl
That's because you have integrity. But you can't be blamed for
assuming Duke was lying. :)
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-09-03 22:25:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 10:20:11 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 08:20:34 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
Equal and opposite forces. They cancel.
There is no such force opposing the pull of gravity experienced
by the satellite. So it accelerates forever around the earth.
And you're lucky that both you and the floor are made of fermions
and not bosons. Pauli exclusion does not apply to bosons. You'd
accelerate straight through to the center of the earth. Accelerating
unimpeded forever, just like our satellite.
AA
At last, somebody here who knows a lot more physics than I do. I've been
tempted to cross-post to sci.physics, but now I won't have to.
Oh, I doubt that I actually do know more than you do. Maybe some
LOL. I'm sure that you know more about everything than I do. I've read your
posts in other threads too.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
esoteric bits like the Pauli exclusion principle, but that's interesting
to me because it explains the structure of the orbitals of the atoms,
and by doing so makes sense of the entire Periodic Table.
And as I was a chemist in a past life -- or at least in the past century --
that was of interest to me. One of those (relatively) simple insights
that explained so many things.
AA
Yes, I can guess it would make a difference in one's understanding of
chemical bonds at some advanced level of chemistry well beyond what I've
ever studied. (intro inorganic, organic, biochem, radchem)
Haahaahaa. Here we have a D high school student who was accepted into college,
taught in college and now dropping big words as inorganic, organic, biochem and
radchem.
Where I come from -- you know, the practice of science -- those are everyday words.
If they seem like "big words" to you, then that says something about
you, not Ted.
Oh, and that "D high school student" business? That's lying. Do you bring up this
sort of behavior in the confessional?
AA
Actually, I truthfully told duke that I got mostly D grades in HS
(leaving out the part that my SAT math score was 780 and my overall
GPAs after that were all >3.7.
Oh? Well then, I shall apologize when it comes up again.
Atlatl
That's because you have integrity. But you can't be blamed for
assuming Duke was lying. :)
Incidentally, a 780 on SATs is stunning.

I did not do that well. My excuse is that when I
took it, we had not had trigonometry. When a lot
of questions involve those "sine" and "cosine" thingies,
and you've never heard of them, it tends to cut into
your performance.

But that aside, I seriously doubt I would have
gotten as high as you did even had I had all
the relevant courses. I suspect you have an
intuitive feel for the beast that I lack.


AtlA
Ted
2017-09-03 23:41:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 10:20:11 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 08:20:34 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge
of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth
orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth.
Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it
calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration.
Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
Equal and opposite forces. They cancel.
There is no such force opposing the pull of gravity experienced
by the satellite. So it accelerates forever around the earth.
And you're lucky that both you and the floor are made of fermions
and not bosons. Pauli exclusion does not apply to bosons. You'd
accelerate straight through to the center of the earth. Accelerating
unimpeded forever, just like our satellite.
AA
At last, somebody here who knows a lot more physics than I do. I've been
tempted to cross-post to sci.physics, but now I won't have to.
Oh, I doubt that I actually do know more than you do. Maybe some
LOL. I'm sure that you know more about everything than I do. I've read your
posts in other threads too.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
esoteric bits like the Pauli exclusion principle, but that's interesting
to me because it explains the structure of the orbitals of the atoms,
and by doing so makes sense of the entire Periodic Table.
And as I was a chemist in a past life -- or at least in the past century --
that was of interest to me. One of those (relatively) simple insights
that explained so many things.
AA
Yes, I can guess it would make a difference in one's understanding of
chemical bonds at some advanced level of chemistry well beyond what I've
ever studied. (intro inorganic, organic, biochem, radchem)
Haahaahaa. Here we have a D high school student who was accepted into college,
taught in college and now dropping big words as inorganic, organic, biochem and
radchem.
Where I come from -- you know, the practice of science -- those are everyday words.
If they seem like "big words" to you, then that says something about
you, not Ted.
Oh, and that "D high school student" business? That's lying. Do you bring up this
sort of behavior in the confessional?
AA
Actually, I truthfully told duke that I got mostly D grades in HS
(leaving out the part that my SAT math score was 780 and my overall
GPAs after that were all >3.7.
Oh? Well then, I shall apologize when it comes up again.
Atlatl
That's because you have integrity. But you can't be blamed for
assuming Duke was lying. :)
Incidentally, a 780 on SATs is stunning.
Doesn't matter, I'm an idiot. And only 650 on the verbal.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
I did not do that well. My excuse is that when I
took it, we had not had trigonometry. When a lot
of questions involve those "sine" and "cosine" thingies,
and you've never heard of them, it tends to cut into
your performance.
That must be the *only* reason.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
But that aside, I seriously doubt I would have
gotten as high as you did even had I had all
the relevant courses. I suspect you have an
intuitive feel for the beast that I lack.
Thanks, but I've long recognized that you're *much* more intelligent than I
am. It's been proven repeatedly. You're closer to some of the brilliant
people I've worked with.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
AtlA
Jeanne Douglas
2017-09-04 12:07:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 10:20:11 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 08:20:34 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
Equal and opposite forces. They cancel.
There is no such force opposing the pull of gravity experienced
by the satellite. So it accelerates forever around the earth.
And you're lucky that both you and the floor are made of fermions
and not bosons. Pauli exclusion does not apply to bosons. You'd
accelerate straight through to the center of the earth. Accelerating
unimpeded forever, just like our satellite.
AA
At last, somebody here who knows a lot more physics than I do. I've been
tempted to cross-post to sci.physics, but now I won't have to.
Oh, I doubt that I actually do know more than you do. Maybe some
LOL. I'm sure that you know more about everything than I do. I've read your
posts in other threads too.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
esoteric bits like the Pauli exclusion principle, but that's interesting
to me because it explains the structure of the orbitals of the atoms,
and by doing so makes sense of the entire Periodic Table.
And as I was a chemist in a past life -- or at least in the past century --
that was of interest to me. One of those (relatively) simple insights
that explained so many things.
AA
Yes, I can guess it would make a difference in one's understanding of
chemical bonds at some advanced level of chemistry well beyond what I've
ever studied. (intro inorganic, organic, biochem, radchem)
Haahaahaa. Here we have a D high school student who was accepted into college,
taught in college and now dropping big words as inorganic, organic, biochem and
radchem.
Where I come from -- you know, the practice of science -- those are everyday words.
If they seem like "big words" to you, then that says something about
you, not Ted.
Oh, and that "D high school student" business? That's lying. Do you bring up this
sort of behavior in the confessional?
AA
Actually, I truthfully told duke that I got mostly D grades in HS
(leaving out the part that my SAT math score was 780 and my overall
GPAs after that were all >3.7.
Oh? Well then, I shall apologize when it comes up again.
Atlatl
That's because you have integrity. But you can't be blamed for
assuming Duke was lying. :)
Incidentally, a 780 on SATs is stunning.
Yeah. Makes my 727 feel inadequate.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
I did not do that well. My excuse is that when I
took it, we had not had trigonometry. When a lot
of questions involve those "sine" and "cosine" thingies,
and you've never heard of them, it tends to cut into
your performance.
But that aside, I seriously doubt I would have
gotten as high as you did even had I had all
the relevant courses. I suspect you have an
intuitive feel for the beast that I lack.
AtlA
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Ted
2017-09-04 13:22:42 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 04 Sep 2017 07:07:52 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 10:20:11 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 08:20:34 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
Equal and opposite forces. They cancel.
There is no such force opposing the pull of gravity experienced
by the satellite. So it accelerates forever around the earth.
And you're lucky that both you and the floor are made of fermions
and not bosons. Pauli exclusion does not apply to bosons. You'd
accelerate straight through to the center of the earth. Accelerating
unimpeded forever, just like our satellite.
AA
At last, somebody here who knows a lot more physics than I do. I've been
tempted to cross-post to sci.physics, but now I won't have to.
Oh, I doubt that I actually do know more than you do. Maybe some
LOL. I'm sure that you know more about everything than I do. I've read your
posts in other threads too.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
esoteric bits like the Pauli exclusion principle, but that's interesting
to me because it explains the structure of the orbitals of the atoms,
and by doing so makes sense of the entire Periodic Table.
And as I was a chemist in a past life -- or at least in the past century --
that was of interest to me. One of those (relatively) simple insights
that explained so many things.
AA
Yes, I can guess it would make a difference in one's understanding of
chemical bonds at some advanced level of chemistry well beyond what I've
ever studied. (intro inorganic, organic, biochem, radchem)
Haahaahaa. Here we have a D high school student who was accepted into college,
taught in college and now dropping big words as inorganic, organic, biochem and
radchem.
Where I come from -- you know, the practice of science -- those are everyday words.
If they seem like "big words" to you, then that says something about
you, not Ted.
Oh, and that "D high school student" business? That's lying. Do you bring up this
sort of behavior in the confessional?
AA
Actually, I truthfully told duke that I got mostly D grades in HS
(leaving out the part that my SAT math score was 780 and my overall
GPAs after that were all >3.7.
Oh? Well then, I shall apologize when it comes up again.
Atlatl
That's because you have integrity. But you can't be blamed for
assuming Duke was lying. :)
Incidentally, a 780 on SATs is stunning.
Yeah. Makes my 727 feel inadequate.
Are you kidding? Some of the physicists with whom you worked at UCLA
didn't score that high.
duke
2017-09-04 18:15:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 08:20:34 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Haahaahaa. Here we have a D high school student who was accepted into college,
taught in college and now dropping big words as inorganic, organic, biochem and
radchem.
Where I come from -- you know, the practice of science -- those are everyday words.
This is a D-average boy we're talking about.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
If they seem like "big words" to you, then that says something about
you, not Ted.
Oh, and that "D high school student" business? That's lying. Do you bring up this
sort of behavior in the confessional?
Oh, nooooo. That was his words, not mine.


the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-09-03 16:15:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
Equal and opposite forces. They cancel.
There is no such force opposing the pull of gravity experienced
by the satellite. So it accelerates forever around the earth.
And you're lucky that both you and the floor are made of fermions
and not bosons. Pauli exclusion does not apply to bosons. You'd
accelerate straight through to the center of the earth. Accelerating
unimpeded forever, just like our satellite.
AA
At last, somebody here who knows a lot more physics than I do. I've been
tempted to cross-post to sci.physics, but now I won't have to.
Oh, I doubt that I actually do know more than you do. Maybe some
LOL. I'm sure that you know more about everything than I do. I've read your
posts in other threads too.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
esoteric bits like the Pauli exclusion principle, but that's interesting
to me because it explains the structure of the orbitals of the atoms,
and by doing so makes sense of the entire Periodic Table.
And as I was a chemist in a past life -- or at least in the past century --
that was of interest to me. One of those (relatively) simple insights
that explained so many things.
AA
Yes, I can guess it would make a difference in one's understanding of
chemical bonds at some advanced level of chemistry well beyond what I've
ever studied. (intro inorganic, organic, biochem, radchem)
Haahaahaa. Here we have a D high school student who was accepted into college,
taught in college and now dropping big words as inorganic, organic, biochem and
radchem.
True enough, except I don't consider those to be "big words".
duke
2017-09-02 17:29:58 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 15:12:03 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
And a satellite in stable orbit is being kept there by gravity, a force, which
keeps the satellite from flying off into the cosmos.

And a man standing on good old earth is undergoing an acceleration of 32.3
ft/sec^2 and still not going anywhere becasue the force of the earth is pushing
up on the Coulombic repulsion.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-09-02 20:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 15:12:03 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
And a satellite in stable orbit is being kept there by gravity, a force, which
keeps the satellite from flying off into the cosmos.
And a man standing on good old earth is undergoing an acceleration of 32.3
ft/sec^2 and still not going anywhere becasue the force of the earth is pushing
up on the Coulombic repulsion.
I already explained where the 32 ft/s/s comes from. A person standing still
is not accelerating.
duke
2017-09-03 15:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 15:12:03 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
And a satellite in stable orbit is being kept there by gravity, a force, which
keeps the satellite from flying off into the cosmos.
And a man standing on good old earth is undergoing an acceleration of 32.3
ft/sec^2 and still not going anywhere becasue the force of the earth is pushing
up on the Coulombic repulsion.
I already explained where the 32 ft/s/s comes from. A person standing still
is not accelerating.
Is he not riding the rotating surface of the earth in acceleration?

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-09-03 16:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 15:12:03 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
And a satellite in stable orbit is being kept there by gravity, a force, which
keeps the satellite from flying off into the cosmos.
And a man standing on good old earth is undergoing an acceleration of 32.3
ft/sec^2 and still not going anywhere becasue the force of the earth is pushing
up on the Coulombic repulsion.
I already explained where the 32 ft/s/s comes from. A person standing still
is not accelerating.
Is he not riding the rotating surface of the earth in acceleration?
It was understood that we meant relative to the Earth, and you know
that. You're not even good at moving goalposts. The Earth was also
revolving around the Sun and the whole solar system was itself moving
relative to the rest of the galaxy, which itself was moving relative
to the rest of the universe.
duke
2017-09-04 18:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 15:12:03 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
..
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still.
You're not accelerating because you're subject to two
equal and opposing forces.
One is the force due to gravity.
The opposing force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The electrons in the atoms of the floor gravity is attempting to squish
you into are pushing back against the electrons in the atoms of your shoes.
Coulombic repulsion.
And a satellite in stable orbit is being kept there by gravity, a force, which
keeps the satellite from flying off into the cosmos.
And a man standing on good old earth is undergoing an acceleration of 32.3
ft/sec^2 and still not going anywhere becasue the force of the earth is pushing
up on the Coulombic repulsion.
I already explained where the 32 ft/s/s comes from. A person standing still
is not accelerating.
Is he not riding the rotating surface of the earth in acceleration?
It was understood that we meant relative to the Earth,
D-average students tend to speak without thinking.

and you know
Post by Ted
that. You're not even good at moving goalposts. The Earth was also
revolving around the Sun and the whole solar system was itself moving
relative to the rest of the galaxy, which itself was moving relative
to the rest of the universe.
the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-09-01 22:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Then show us how you did it. I'm willing to show you the correct way to do
it. Which you'd need, if the problem were any more complex. Your way
wouldn't work.
You used the vector method. I used the calculation method.
The problem was so trivially easy that I don't doubt there would be other
ways to solve it. But would your method work on something complex? I'm not
saying it can't, because I couldn't know that unless I saw what it was.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
No, that equation holds true for all macroscopic cases in the known world,
not just gravity.
I don't see you even knowing what F = ma means.
You've demonstrated ignorance about F=ma, but I haven't.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration.
Both terms are valid labels for physical phenomena.
F = force.
Post by Ted
Post by duke
You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
So?
Standing still
I think I see what you mean, and yes, it's "always" 32 ft/s/s, but that
value isn't an intrinsic property of matter. It's derived from more
fundamental concepts, including that formula you once tried to copy and
paste but instead fucked up (Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation).

If the forces sum to zero, acceleration is also zero. You don't have a
non-zero acceleration of a mass unless the net force on it is non-zero. You
invoked F=ma above, so use it.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-08-31 18:31:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Excellent. Let's see them.

RIght here:








AA
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Otoh, you still can't come to grips that a satellite at constant speed has no
acceleration. Let's see your calculation, D high school average boy.
The equation? F=ma, you braindead imbecile.
Sorry, boy. That's acceleration due to gravity - zero velocity, not
acceleration otherwise.
Post by Ted
But if you don't know the
force or mass, you can calculate it from the speed and radius of curvature.
And I've already explained centripetal acceleration to you in a different
thread.
I know what centripetal FORCE is, not acceleration. You boys and girls are
getting confused between force and acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity of
one standing still on the earth's surface is 32.2 ft/sec^2 .
the dukester, American-American
*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-08-31 18:34:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are
therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
I recently explained centripetal acceleration to you, duke.
You screwed up.
No, I explained it correctly. It's basic mechanics, about which you
know nothing at all because you're a fraud.
You still haven't advised that the tension in the rope is. I have it calculated
so I can advise you if you know what you're talking about.
LOL. It's 0.7W, duke, as any first semester physics student could tell you
in 15 s.
I know that but you just agree with atlatl that the vertical component was .5W.
That was never the question.
Post by Ted
Now you tell us how to arrive at that value. Because the final
answer doesn't prove anything at all. Show us you know at least something
about statics.
I did it the old fashion way like an engineer does, calculations.
Excellent. Let's see them.
AA
LOL. Exactly. :)
Tim
2017-08-29 17:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
Moons are satellites, you fat smug prig. They don't all orbit the Earth, fool.
%
2017-08-29 18:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
Moons are satellites, you fat smug prig. They don't all orbit the Earth, fool.
are you having a busy day at work today
duke
2017-08-30 21:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
Moons are satellites, you fat smug prig. They don't all orbit the Earth, fool.
OMG, what is this idiot talking about? Leave it to a triangle to screw up a
discussion.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-08-30 22:17:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are therefore
accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
Moons are satellites, you fat smug prig. They don't all orbit the Earth, fool.
OMG, what is this idiot talking about? Leave it to a triangle to screw up a
discussion.
He's right, idiot.
duke
2017-08-31 16:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are therefore
accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
Moons are satellites, you fat smug prig. They don't all orbit the Earth, fool.
OMG, what is this idiot talking about? Leave it to a triangle to screw up a
discussion.
He's right, idiot.
No, he's not.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-08-31 18:20:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are therefore
accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
Moons are satellites, you fat smug prig. They don't all orbit the Earth, fool.
OMG, what is this idiot talking about? Leave it to a triangle to screw up a
discussion.
He's right, idiot.
No, he's not.
Yes he is. But stay stupid, duke.
Tim
2017-08-31 08:36:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are therefore accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
Moons are satellites, you fat smug prig. They don't all orbit the Earth, fool.
OMG, what is this idiot talking about?
The fact that moons are satellites, you dumb fat prick.
Post by duke
Leave it to a triangle to screw up a
discussion.
Trust fat earl to be ignorant of what he claims to know.
Ted
2017-08-31 08:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are therefore
accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
Moons are satellites, you fat smug prig. They don't all orbit the Earth, fool.
OMG, what is this idiot talking about?
The fact that moons are satellites, you dumb fat prick.
Post by duke
Leave it to a triangle to screw up a
discussion.
Trust fat earl to be ignorant of what he claims to know.
And then to arrogantly claim that everybody else is ignorant.
duke
2017-08-31 16:52:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are therefore
accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
Moons are satellites, you fat smug prig. They don't all orbit the Earth, fool.
OMG, what is this idiot talking about?
The fact that moons are satellites, you dumb fat prick.
Post by duke
Leave it to a triangle to screw up a
discussion.
Trust fat earl to be ignorant of what he claims to know.
And then to arrogantly claim that everybody else is ignorant.
You birdbrains are.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Syd M.
2017-08-31 20:25:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
So tell us again. How does a satellite in stable velocity in earth orbit have
acceleration or deceleration???????????????
Any object travelling at a constant speed while changing direction is
accelerating, you fat moron. In case you didn't know satellites orbit
other objects and are therefore always changing direction and are therefore
accelerating, you putty brained lump of shit.
Gosh, and here I thought the satellite was circling the earth. Heeheehee.
You must have been one of teddie the fairy's students.
Moons are satellites, you fat smug prig. They don't all orbit the Earth, fool.
OMG, what is this idiot talking about?
The fact that moons are satellites, you dumb fat prick.
Post by duke
Leave it to a triangle to screw up a
discussion.
Trust fat earl to be ignorant of what he claims to know.
And then to arrogantly claim that everybody else is ignorant.
You birdbrains are.
Yes, Dork, we know you are.

PDW
duke
2017-09-02 18:30:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Syd M.
Yes, Dork, we know you are.
PDW
Rest assured you will never be afforded a return message until you grow up and
become a man in discussion.

Just though I owed you that much. I usually just ignore you.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
duke
2017-08-24 21:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too. But he
wasn't easy like you.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Syd M.
2017-08-26 14:23:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.

PDW
Ted
2017-08-26 18:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.
PDW
Yeah, really. Do you remember Seth? His nym was "nature bats last". He was
a sharp guy who knew physics much better than I do.
Syd M.
2017-08-29 19:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.
PDW
Yeah, really. Do you remember Seth? His nym was "nature bats last". He was
a sharp guy who knew physics much better than I do.
Yeah, he was something. Could run rings around our fundie friends.

PDw
Ted
2017-08-29 20:34:29 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
Post by Syd M.
Post by Ted
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.
PDW
Yeah, really. Do you remember Seth? His nym was "nature bats last". He was
a sharp guy who knew physics much better than I do.
Yeah, he was something. Could run rings around our fundie friends.
PDw
Yeah, he's a good fellow. I hope he's well and returns. Brenda would
know about him, they correspond.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-08-31 06:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
Post by Syd M.
Post by Ted
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.
PDW
Yeah, really. Do you remember Seth? His nym was "nature bats last". He was
a sharp guy who knew physics much better than I do.
Yeah, he was something. Could run rings around our fundie friends.
PDw
Yeah, he's a good fellow. I hope he's well and returns. Brenda would
know about him, they correspond.
We haven't seen Brenda in months. I hope she's okay.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Ted
2017-08-31 08:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
Post by Syd M.
Post by Ted
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.
PDW
Yeah, really. Do you remember Seth? His nym was "nature bats last". He was
a sharp guy who knew physics much better than I do.
Yeah, he was something. Could run rings around our fundie friends.
PDw
Yeah, he's a good fellow. I hope he's well and returns. Brenda would
know about him, they correspond.
We haven't seen Brenda in months. I hope she's okay.
I corresponded with her and have her email somewhere. If I can dig it up,
I'll drop her a line. She's an awesome person.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-09-01 05:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
Post by Syd M.
Post by Ted
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.
PDW
Yeah, really. Do you remember Seth? His nym was "nature bats last". He was
a sharp guy who knew physics much better than I do.
Yeah, he was something. Could run rings around our fundie friends.
PDw
Yeah, he's a good fellow. I hope he's well and returns. Brenda would
know about him, they correspond.
We haven't seen Brenda in months. I hope she's okay.
I corresponded with her and have her email somewhere. If I can dig it up,
I'll drop her a line. She's an awesome person.
Yes, she is. Tell her "hi" from me.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Ted
2017-09-01 09:05:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
Post by Syd M.
Post by Ted
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.
PDW
Yeah, really. Do you remember Seth? His nym was "nature bats last". He was
a sharp guy who knew physics much better than I do.
Yeah, he was something. Could run rings around our fundie friends.
PDw
Yeah, he's a good fellow. I hope he's well and returns. Brenda would
know about him, they correspond.
We haven't seen Brenda in months. I hope she's okay.
I corresponded with her and have her email somewhere. If I can dig it up,
I'll drop her a line. She's an awesome person.
Yes, she is. Tell her "hi" from me.
I will.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-09-01 15:52:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
Post by Syd M.
Post by Ted
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.
PDW
Yeah, really. Do you remember Seth? His nym was "nature bats last". He was
a sharp guy who knew physics much better than I do.
Yeah, he was something. Could run rings around our fundie friends.
PDw
Yeah, he's a good fellow. I hope he's well and returns. Brenda would
know about him, they correspond.
We haven't seen Brenda in months. I hope she's okay.
She is indeed alive and okay.

AA
Post by Jeanne Douglas
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Ted
2017-09-01 16:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
Post by Syd M.
Post by Ted
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.
PDW
Yeah, really. Do you remember Seth? His nym was "nature bats last". He was
a sharp guy who knew physics much better than I do.
Yeah, he was something. Could run rings around our fundie friends.
PDw
Yeah, he's a good fellow. I hope he's well and returns. Brenda would
know about him, they correspond.
We haven't seen Brenda in months. I hope she's okay.
She is indeed alive and okay.
AA
That's good to hear. I emailed her yday, but from an address that I hadn't
used before. Do you also know Seth? What about Panama Floyd?
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-09-01 16:53:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
Post by Syd M.
Post by Ted
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.
PDW
Yeah, really. Do you remember Seth? His nym was "nature bats last". He was
a sharp guy who knew physics much better than I do.
Yeah, he was something. Could run rings around our fundie friends.
PDw
Yeah, he's a good fellow. I hope he's well and returns. Brenda would
know about him, they correspond.
We haven't seen Brenda in months. I hope she's okay.
She is indeed alive and okay.
AA
That's good to hear. I emailed her yday, but from an address that I hadn't
used before. Do you also know Seth? What about Panama Floyd?
Seth too is still grooving, but Panama Floyd I do not know about.


AA
Ted
2017-09-01 18:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
Post by Syd M.
Post by Ted
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.
PDW
Yeah, really. Do you remember Seth? His nym was "nature bats last". He was
a sharp guy who knew physics much better than I do.
Yeah, he was something. Could run rings around our fundie friends.
PDw
Yeah, he's a good fellow. I hope he's well and returns. Brenda would
know about him, they correspond.
We haven't seen Brenda in months. I hope she's okay.
She is indeed alive and okay.
AA
That's good to hear. I emailed her yday, but from an address that I hadn't
used before. Do you also know Seth? What about Panama Floyd?
Seth too is still grooving, but Panama Floyd I do not know about.
AA
Cool. Good news. I wish they'd return here.
hleopold
2017-09-02 09:50:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
Post by Syd M.
Post by Ted
Post by Syd M.
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose
knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with
duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.
PDW
Yeah, really. Do you remember Seth? His nym was "nature bats last". He
was
a sharp guy who knew physics much better than I do.
Yeah, he was something. Could run rings around our fundie friends.
PDw
Yeah, he's a good fellow. I hope he's well and returns. Brenda would
know about him, they correspond.
We haven't seen Brenda in months. I hope she's okay.
She is indeed alive and okay.
AA
That's good to hear. I emailed her yday, but from an address that I hadn't
used before. Do you also know Seth? What about Panama Floyd?
Seth too is still grooving, but Panama Floyd I do not know about.
Yeah, I have been worried about Brenda since she has not posted for quite a
while, glad to hear she is well. Same with Seth.

Now if we only knew how Mark Bilbo, Clayton, and several other are doing.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness (remove gene to email)

“It’s not over till the fat whale farts.”
duke
2017-09-03 15:13:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 09:53:26 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
Post by Syd M.
Post by Ted
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.
PDW
Yeah, really. Do you remember Seth? His nym was "nature bats last". He was
a sharp guy who knew physics much better than I do.
Yeah, he was something. Could run rings around our fundie friends.
PDw
Yeah, he's a good fellow. I hope he's well and returns. Brenda would
know about him, they correspond.
We haven't seen Brenda in months. I hope she's okay.
She is indeed alive and okay.
AA
That's good to hear. I emailed her yday, but from an address that I hadn't
used before. Do you also know Seth? What about Panama Floyd?
Seth too is still grooving, but Panama Floyd I do not know about.
Wow, you DO go a long way back.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-09-03 16:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 09:53:26 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
Post by Syd M.
Post by Ted
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose knowledge of
physics is much greater than mine, had his own experiences with duke's
arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.
PDW
Yeah, really. Do you remember Seth? His nym was "nature bats last". He was
a sharp guy who knew physics much better than I do.
Yeah, he was something. Could run rings around our fundie friends.
PDw
Yeah, he's a good fellow. I hope he's well and returns. Brenda would
know about him, they correspond.
We haven't seen Brenda in months. I hope she's okay.
She is indeed alive and okay.
AA
That's good to hear. I emailed her yday, but from an address that I hadn't
used before. Do you also know Seth? What about Panama Floyd?
Seth too is still grooving, but Panama Floyd I do not know about.
Wow, you DO go a long way back.
So do I, duke.
Smiler
2017-09-02 02:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
Post by Syd M.
Post by Ted
Post by Syd M.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 15:16:00 +0000, Ted
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose
knowledge of physics is much greater than mine, had his own
experiences with duke's arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.
PDW
Yeah, really. Do you remember Seth? His nym was "nature bats
last". He was a sharp guy who knew physics much better than I do.
Yeah, he was something. Could run rings around our fundie friends.
PDw
Yeah, he's a good fellow. I hope he's well and returns. Brenda would
know about him, they correspond.
We haven't seen Brenda in months. I hope she's okay.
She is indeed alive and okay.
Glad to hear that. Please send her my regards.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Ted
2017-09-02 11:29:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
Post by Syd M.
Post by Ted
Post by Syd M.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 15:16:00 +0000, Ted
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose
knowledge of physics is much greater than mine, had his own
experiences with duke's arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.
PDW
Yeah, really. Do you remember Seth? His nym was "nature bats
last". He was a sharp guy who knew physics much better than I do.
Yeah, he was something. Could run rings around our fundie friends.
PDw
Yeah, he's a good fellow. I hope he's well and returns. Brenda would
know about him, they correspond.
We haven't seen Brenda in months. I hope she's okay.
She is indeed alive and okay.
Glad to hear that. Please send her my regards.
You're one of the few a.a. veterans here who never changed their nym.
Smiler
2017-09-03 02:30:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Smiler
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
Post by Syd M.
Post by Ted
Post by Syd M.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 15:16:00 +0000, Ted
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose
knowledge of physics is much greater than mine, had his own
experiences with duke's arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.
PDW
Yeah, really. Do you remember Seth? His nym was "nature bats
last". He was a sharp guy who knew physics much better than I do.
Yeah, he was something. Could run rings around our fundie friends.
PDw
Yeah, he's a good fellow. I hope he's well and returns. Brenda would
know about him, they correspond.
We haven't seen Brenda in months. I hope she's okay.
She is indeed alive and okay.
Glad to hear that. Please send her my regards.
You're one of the few a.a. veterans here who never changed their nym.
Why would I?
It fits my poisonality.
And if the trolls killfile me, I'm quite happy that they cannot answer me.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
duke
2017-09-03 15:14:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by Ted
Post by Smiler
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
Post by Syd M.
Post by Ted
Post by Syd M.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 15:16:00 +0000, Ted
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose
knowledge of physics is much greater than mine, had his own
experiences with duke's arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.
PDW
Yeah, really. Do you remember Seth? His nym was "nature bats
last". He was a sharp guy who knew physics much better than I do.
Yeah, he was something. Could run rings around our fundie friends.
PDw
Yeah, he's a good fellow. I hope he's well and returns. Brenda would
know about him, they correspond.
We haven't seen Brenda in months. I hope she's okay.
She is indeed alive and okay.
Glad to hear that. Please send her my regards.
You're one of the few a.a. veterans here who never changed their nym.
Why would I?
It fits my poisonality.
And if the trolls killfile me, I'm quite happy that they cannot answer me.
I'm here.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-09-03 16:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
Post by Ted
Post by Smiler
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
Post by Syd M.
Post by Ted
Post by Syd M.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 15:16:00 +0000, Ted
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose
knowledge of physics is much greater than mine, had his own
experiences with duke's arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.
PDW
Yeah, really. Do you remember Seth? His nym was "nature bats
last". He was a sharp guy who knew physics much better than I do.
Yeah, he was something. Could run rings around our fundie friends.
PDw
Yeah, he's a good fellow. I hope he's well and returns. Brenda would
know about him, they correspond.
We haven't seen Brenda in months. I hope she's okay.
She is indeed alive and okay.
Glad to hear that. Please send her my regards.
You're one of the few a.a. veterans here who never changed their nym.
Why would I?
It fits my poisonality.
And if the trolls killfile me, I'm quite happy that they cannot answer me.
I'm here.
And we appreciate your not killfiling us, duke. Now that Kurt's dead,
you're my major source of amusement here.
duke
2017-09-04 18:16:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
Post by Ted
Post by Smiler
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
Post by Syd M.
Post by Ted
Post by Syd M.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 15:16:00 +0000, Ted
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose
knowledge of physics is much greater than mine, had his own
experiences with duke's arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about
mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.
PDW
Yeah, really. Do you remember Seth? His nym was "nature bats
last". He was a sharp guy who knew physics much better than I do.
Yeah, he was something. Could run rings around our fundie friends.
PDw
Yeah, he's a good fellow. I hope he's well and returns. Brenda would
know about him, they correspond.
We haven't seen Brenda in months. I hope she's okay.
She is indeed alive and okay.
Glad to hear that. Please send her my regards.
You're one of the few a.a. veterans here who never changed their nym.
Why would I?
It fits my poisonality.
And if the trolls killfile me, I'm quite happy that they cannot answer me.
I'm here.
And we appreciate your not killfiling us, duke. Now that Kurt's dead,
you're my major source of amusement here.
Kurt's dead????

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-09-04 19:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
Post by Ted
Post by Smiler
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
Post by Syd M.
Post by Ted
Post by Syd M.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 15:16:00 +0000, Ted
Post by Ted
A quick search revealed that Seth (nature bats last), whose
knowledge of physics is much greater than mine, had his own
experiences with duke's arrogant stupidity.
But how can a mechanical engineer not know anything about
mechanics?
I remember some body named seth, I think. Whupped up on him too.
In your dreams, Dork.
PDW
Yeah, really. Do you remember Seth? His nym was "nature bats
last". He was a sharp guy who knew physics much better than I do.
Yeah, he was something. Could run rings around our fundie friends.
PDw
Yeah, he's a good fellow. I hope he's well and returns. Brenda would
know about him, they correspond.
We haven't seen Brenda in months. I hope she's okay.
She is indeed alive and okay.
Glad to hear that. Please send her my regards.
You're one of the few a.a. veterans here who never changed their nym.
Why would I?
It fits my poisonality.
And if the trolls killfile me, I'm quite happy that they cannot answer me.
I'm here.
And we appreciate your not killfiling us, duke. Now that Kurt's dead,
you're my major source of amusement here.
Kurt's dead????
Kurt Lochner. He was a physicist who posted to a.f.r.-l. You had an
encounter with him a few months back. (He called you "dupe".) He and I used
to argue over our disagreements, but at least he knew a lot of physics
(unlike you, who are completely ignorant). He died suddenly and your utter
stupidity makes me miss him even more.