| 29-11-2018 02:13 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21599) |
James___ wrote:
...deleted irrelevant portion...
In the future I'll probably learn more about calculus. It kind of goes along with science and I do like science.
You deny both math and science. Good luck.
James___ wrote:
Where I'm a bit different about physics is that I've read books on scientists and their work. It helps to understand what they were thinking so everything isn't just about an equation. With too many people that's all it comes back to. You seem to have read some very odd books.
James___ wrote:
One famous scientist actually came up with a calculation for the electron where it's value was about 1.4. He said it needed to be 1 so he changed the answer to 1. What famous scientist are you referring to? What unit is the 1.4 and the 1 in? Please also describe his reasoning for 'changing the answer' and how you can 'change the answer' of a calculation from fixed numbers.
James___ wrote:
He was considering it's linear + angular momentum of which 1 was the KE of an electron. What he might not have considered is that it's linear and angular velocities could very while the electron has a constant average like gas molecules have.
Buzzword fallacy.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-11-2018 02:22 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...deleted irrelevant portion...
In the future I'll probably learn more about calculus. It kind of goes along with science and I do like science.
You deny both math and science. Good luck.
James___ wrote:
Where I'm a bit different about physics is that I've read books on scientists and their work. It helps to understand what they were thinking so everything isn't just about an equation. With too many people that's all it comes back to. You seem to have read some very odd books.
James___ wrote:
One famous scientist actually came up with a calculation for the electron where it's value was about 1.4. He said it needed to be 1 so he changed the answer to 1. What famous scientist are you referring to? What unit is the 1.4 and the 1 in? Please also describe his reasoning for 'changing the answer' and how you can 'change the answer' of a calculation from fixed numbers.
James___ wrote:
He was considering it's linear + angular momentum of which 1 was the KE of an electron. What he might not have considered is that it's linear and angular velocities could very while the electron has a constant average like gas molecules have.
Buzzword fallacy.
Why would you consider Einstein's biography an odd book?
It's obvious. It's not based on logic but on someone's life.
Edited on 29-11-2018 02:24 |
| 29-11-2018 02:50 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...deleted irrelevant portion...
In the future I'll probably learn more about calculus. It kind of goes along with science and I do like science.
You deny both math and science. Good luck.
James___ wrote:
Where I'm a bit different about physics is that I've read books on scientists and their work. It helps to understand what they were thinking so everything isn't just about an equation. With too many people that's all it comes back to. You seem to have read some very odd books.
James___ wrote:
One famous scientist actually came up with a calculation for the electron where it's value was about 1.4. He said it needed to be 1 so he changed the answer to 1. What famous scientist are you referring to? What unit is the 1.4 and the 1 in? Please also describe his reasoning for 'changing the answer' and how you can 'change the answer' of a calculation from fixed numbers.
James___ wrote:
He was considering it's linear + angular momentum of which 1 was the KE of an electron. What he might not have considered is that it's linear and angular velocities could very while the electron has a constant average like gas molecules have.
Buzzword fallacy.
Why would you consider Einstein's biography an odd book?
It's obvious. It's not based on logic but on someone's life.
Einstein never wrote about any such experiment in his biography. Try again.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-11-2018 03:46 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...deleted irrelevant portion...
In the future I'll probably learn more about calculus. It kind of goes along with science and I do like science.
You deny both math and science. Good luck.
James___ wrote:
Where I'm a bit different about physics is that I've read books on scientists and their work. It helps to understand what they were thinking so everything isn't just about an equation. With too many people that's all it comes back to. You seem to have read some very odd books.
James___ wrote:
One famous scientist actually came up with a calculation for the electron where it's value was about 1.4. He said it needed to be 1 so he changed the answer to 1. What famous scientist are you referring to? What unit is the 1.4 and the 1 in? Please also describe his reasoning for 'changing the answer' and how you can 'change the answer' of a calculation from fixed numbers.
James___ wrote:
He was considering it's linear + angular momentum of which 1 was the KE of an electron. What he might not have considered is that it's linear and angular velocities could very while the electron has a constant average like gas molecules have.
Buzzword fallacy.
Why would you consider Einstein's biography an odd book?
It's obvious. It's not based on logic but on someone's life.
Einstein never wrote about any such experiment in his biography. Try again.
Yet you consider that a "logical" answer. This is where your logic fails you. |
| 29-11-2018 15:43 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe he learned calculus... It takes a while to get it, but it's quicker and easier to use, over algebra. I only took one semester, but I remember wondering why I had to mess around with so much algebra first, guess that's how colleges make money...
Now that is really stupid. Algebra is simple and you use every day in fields such as research. Algebra calculates change while Calculus the rate of change.
Not what calculus does, Wake.
Try again.
Differential calculus is what you use to calulate the rate of change.
Intergration, calculus, is what you use to find the area under the graph or the sum of the function. |
|
| 29-11-2018 19:59 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe he learned calculus... It takes a while to get it, but it's quicker and easier to use, over algebra. I only took one semester, but I remember wondering why I had to mess around with so much algebra first, guess that's how colleges make money...
Now that is really stupid. Algebra is simple and you use every day in fields such as research. Algebra calculates change while Calculus the rate of change.
Not what calculus does, Wake.
Try again.
Differential calculus is what you use to calulate the rate of change.
Intergration, calculus, is what you use to find the area under the graph or the sum of the function.
What factors represent those integral calculus curves and how are they generated? |
| 30-11-2018 00:13 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe he learned calculus... It takes a while to get it, but it's quicker and easier to use, over algebra. I only took one semester, but I remember wondering why I had to mess around with so much algebra first, guess that's how colleges make money...
Now that is really stupid. Algebra is simple and you use every day in fields such as research. Algebra calculates change while Calculus the rate of change.
Not what calculus does, Wake.
Try again.
Differential calculus is what you use to calulate the rate of change.
Intergration, calculus, is what you use to find the area under the graph or the sum of the function.
What factors represent those integral calculus curves and how are they generated?
I'll let you answer this one, Tim, If you can figure out what he's asking.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 30-11-2018 00:32 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe he learned calculus... It takes a while to get it, but it's quicker and easier to use, over algebra. I only took one semester, but I remember wondering why I had to mess around with so much algebra first, guess that's how colleges make money...
Now that is really stupid. Algebra is simple and you use every day in fields such as research. Algebra calculates change while Calculus the rate of change.
Not what calculus does, Wake.
Try again.
Differential calculus is what you use to calulate the rate of change.
Intergration, calculus, is what you use to find the area under the graph or the sum of the function.
What factors represent those integral calculus curves and how are they generated?
There's Newton's Theory of Gravity. Talking about the motion of the planets. The information he used came from observations made by Johannes Kepler. There's also launching satellites, etc.
Calculus can be used in engineering to design machinery. You can factor sheer strength, fatigue, etc. so it'll be known if the design can perform the work.
Of course 3/2kT is also calculus just as (3/2kT)/n > 3/2rT is also.
It's the difference in KE in a volume of gasses "n" and a single molecule of gas.
You need to remember, itn doesn't like anything above addition and subtraction. Just too complicated
edited to add; if someone has a lot of different values they need to factor then algebra will help to reduce them to the lowest common denominators.
Edited on 30-11-2018 00:54 |
| 30-11-2018 02:28 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
This is what Fractal Geometry allows for.
https://youtu.be/ktWeH0YIWCE |
| 30-11-2018 02:42 |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★
(5197) |
Fractals are cool, been playing with them on the computer for decades, never gets old.
People tend to forget that math is a huge field, and the different types overlap, but better suited for certain applications. Most people only focus on the math that they need to use in their own field of study. As calculations became more complicated, simpler methods were developed to make it simpler, clear, less chance for computational errors. |
| 30-11-2018 06:12 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe he learned calculus... It takes a while to get it, but it's quicker and easier to use, over algebra. I only took one semester, but I remember wondering why I had to mess around with so much algebra first, guess that's how colleges make money...
Now that is really stupid. Algebra is simple and you use every day in fields such as research. Algebra calculates change while Calculus the rate of change.
Not what calculus does, Wake.
Try again.
Differential calculus is what you use to calulate the rate of change.
Intergration, calculus, is what you use to find the area under the graph or the sum of the function.
What factors represent those integral calculus curves and how are they generated?
There's Newton's Theory of Gravity.
Newton never created a Theory of Gravity. I think you are referring to his Theory of Gravitational Attraction. That is not calculus.
James___ wrote:
Talking about the motion of the planets. The information he used came from observations made by Johannes Kepler.
That did use calculus, they the motion of the planets itself is not.
James___ wrote:
There's also launching satellites, etc.
Nope. Fill a stick with fuel, put a satellite on top, light fuse, get away.
James___ wrote:
Calculus can be used in engineering to design machinery. You can factor sheer strength, fatigue, etc. so it'll be known if the design can perform the work.
Not used much there. Just simple algebra will suffice for most of it.
James___ wrote:
Of course 3/2kT is also calculus just as (3/2kT)/n > 3/2rT is also.
Not calculus.
James___ wrote:
It's the difference in KE in a volume of gasses "n" and a single molecule of gas.
Not calculus.
James___ wrote:
You need to remember, itn doesn't like anything above addition and subtraction. Just too complicated
Insult fallacy.
James___ wrote:
edited to add; if someone has a lot of different values they need to factor then algebra will help to reduce them to the lowest common denominators.
Not calculus.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 30-11-2018 06:45 |
gfm7175 ★★★★★
(3314) |
James___ wrote:
Yet you consider that a "logical" answer. This is where your logic fails you.
Define logic... |
| 30-11-2018 07:05 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
Yet you consider that a "logical" answer. This is where your logic fails you.
Define logic...
|
| 30-11-2018 11:27 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe he learned calculus... It takes a while to get it, but it's quicker and easier to use, over algebra. I only took one semester, but I remember wondering why I had to mess around with so much algebra first, guess that's how colleges make money...
Now that is really stupid. Algebra is simple and you use every day in fields such as research. Algebra calculates change while Calculus the rate of change.
Not what calculus does, Wake.
Try again.
Differential calculus is what you use to calulate the rate of change.
Intergration, calculus, is what you use to find the area under the graph or the sum of the function.
What factors represent those integral calculus curves and how are they generated?
Wake,
What are you talking about?
From definition of constant acceleration;
v, final velocity
u, inital velocity
s, distance
t, time
a, acceration
v = u + at [from definition]
s= [intergral of v] = ut + (at^2)/2 [the t s squared but I can't find super script here] |
| 30-11-2018 14:36 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe he learned calculus... It takes a while to get it, but it's quicker and easier to use, over algebra. I only took one semester, but I remember wondering why I had to mess around with so much algebra first, guess that's how colleges make money...
Now that is really stupid. Algebra is simple and you use every day in fields such as research. Algebra calculates change while Calculus the rate of change.
Not what calculus does, Wake.
Try again.
Differential calculus is what you use to calulate the rate of change.
Intergration, calculus, is what you use to find the area under the graph or the sum of the function.
What factors represent those integral calculus curves and how are they generated?
Wake,
What are you talking about?
From definition of constant acceleration;
v, final velocity
u, inital velocity
s, distance
t, time
a, acceration
v = u + at [from definition]
s= [intergral of v] = ut + (at^2)/2 [the t s squared but I can't find super script here]
at^2 isn't squared. t, time would usually be s/s or s^2 if time is measured in seconds.
It might be simpler to look at it as velocity is m/s and acceleration is m/s/s. All m/s/s means is that every second the velocity will increase by a factor of m/s (meters per second). |
|
| 30-11-2018 18:07 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe he learned calculus... It takes a while to get it, but it's quicker and easier to use, over algebra. I only took one semester, but I remember wondering why I had to mess around with so much algebra first, guess that's how colleges make money...
Now that is really stupid. Algebra is simple and you use every day in fields such as research. Algebra calculates change while Calculus the rate of change.
Not what calculus does, Wake.
Try again.
Differential calculus is what you use to calulate the rate of change.
Intergration, calculus, is what you use to find the area under the graph or the sum of the function.
What factors represent those integral calculus curves and how are they generated?
Wake,
What are you talking about?
From definition of constant acceleration;
v, final velocity
u, inital velocity
s, distance
t, time
a, acceration
v = u + at [from definition]
s= [intergral of v] = ut + (at^2)/2 [the t s squared but I can't find super script here]
That was the point I was trying to make - it all is contained in rate of change. |
| 30-11-2018 19:18 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
I'll see if I can attach the image.
Attached image:
 |
| 01-12-2018 18:56 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
James___ wrote:
I'll see if I can attach the image.
Do ya'all know what's cool about this? This holy link mentions a problem with flow. It's determining how many layers there are in a flow. https://medium.com/iskakaushik/navier-stokes-equation-for-a-dummies-15421f15af18.
With the different layers in our atmosphere, they each can be considered as a flow. The difference would be how https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Mathematics-of-Satellite-Motion effects matter/gases.
This could then be used to show that gravity's angular potential can act as work by increasing the angular momentum or spin of atmospheric gases.
How cool is that? It could take me a few years of playing around with it but when finished I'll be more familiar with calculus
edited to add: this is where gravity's ability to accelerate matter/gases might be able to to be modified to replace pressure when considering Boltzmann's constant. If nothing else it could allow for a model for converting gravity's angular potential to accelerate into kinetic energy.
Edited on 01-12-2018 19:10 |
| 01-12-2018 19:32 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
I'll see if I can attach the image.
Do ya'all know what's cool about this? This holy link mentions a problem with flow. It's determining how many layers there are in a flow. https://medium.com/iskakaushik/navier-stokes-equation-for-a-dummies-15421f15af18.
With the different layers in our atmosphere, they each can be considered as a flow. The difference would be how https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Mathematics-of-Satellite-Motion effects matter/gases.
This could then be used to show that gravity's angular potential can act as work by increasing the angular momentum or spin of atmospheric gases.
How cool is that? It could take me a few years of playing around with it but when finished I'll be more familiar with calculus
edited to add: this is where gravity's ability to accelerate matter/gases might be able to to be modified to replace pressure when considering Boltzmann's constant. If nothing else it could allow for a model for converting gravity's angular potential to accelerate into kinetic energy.
That is sort of a round about manner of saying that the Bernoulli Equations work but we want to explain it differently. There are no layers in the air such as he is discussing. The angle of attack and the reaction to that is plainly solved for any speeds under that of sound. Since everything we're discussing acts at less than the speed of sound do not take another lesson you've just discovered and try to make it an answer to God, the Universe and Everything as you've done in the past. |
| 01-12-2018 20:20 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
I'll see if I can attach the image.
Do ya'all know what's cool about this? This holy link mentions a problem with flow. It's determining how many layers there are in a flow. https://medium.com/iskakaushik/navier-stokes-equation-for-a-dummies-15421f15af18.
With the different layers in our atmosphere, they each can be considered as a flow. The difference would be how https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Mathematics-of-Satellite-Motion effects matter/gases.
This could then be used to show that gravity's angular potential can act as work by increasing the angular momentum or spin of atmospheric gases.
How cool is that? It could take me a few years of playing around with it but when finished I'll be more familiar with calculus
edited to add: this is where gravity's ability to accelerate matter/gases might be able to to be modified to replace pressure when considering Boltzmann's constant. If nothing else it could allow for a model for converting gravity's angular potential to accelerate into kinetic energy.
More random off topic crap. Do you have any idea how to keep track of a conversation James?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 01-12-2018 20:51 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
I'll see if I can attach the image.
Do ya'all know what's cool about this? This holy link mentions a problem with flow. It's determining how many layers there are in a flow. https://medium.com/iskakaushik/navier-stokes-equation-for-a-dummies-15421f15af18.
With the different layers in our atmosphere, they each can be considered as a flow. The difference would be how https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Mathematics-of-Satellite-Motion effects matter/gases.
This could then be used to show that gravity's angular potential can act as work by increasing the angular momentum or spin of atmospheric gases.
How cool is that? It could take me a few years of playing around with it but when finished I'll be more familiar with calculus
edited to add: this is where gravity's ability to accelerate matter/gases might be able to to be modified to replace pressure when considering Boltzmann's constant. If nothing else it could allow for a model for converting gravity's angular potential to accelerate into kinetic energy.
More random off topic crap. Do you have any idea how to keep track of a conversation James?
Obviously not... Look, SQUIRREL!!!!! |
| 01-12-2018 21:03 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
I'll see if I can attach the image.
Do ya'all know what's cool about this? This holy link mentions a problem with flow. It's determining how many layers there are in a flow. https://medium.com/iskakaushik/navier-stokes-equation-for-a-dummies-15421f15af18.
With the different layers in our atmosphere, they each can be considered as a flow. The difference would be how https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Mathematics-of-Satellite-Motion effects matter/gases.
This could then be used to show that gravity's angular potential can act as work by increasing the angular momentum or spin of atmospheric gases.
How cool is that? It could take me a few years of playing around with it but when finished I'll be more familiar with calculus
edited to add: this is where gravity's ability to accelerate matter/gases might be able to to be modified to replace pressure when considering Boltzmann's constant. If nothing else it could allow for a model for converting gravity's angular potential to accelerate into kinetic energy.
That is sort of a round about manner of saying that the Bernoulli Equations work but we want to explain it differently. There are no layers in the air such as he is discussing. The angle of attack and the reaction to that is plainly solved for any speeds under that of sound. Since everything we're discussing acts at less than the speed of sound do not take another lesson you've just discovered and try to make it an answer to God, the Universe and Everything as you've done in the past.
I was referring to how it applies to atmospheric Physics. With the
Bernoulli Equations they probably don't account for the air traveling over the wing to create pressure behind it. This could create back pressure under the wing which would help to create lift from slower moving air. You probably didn't even read the NASA explanation which is not about atmospheric chemistry and physics. Instead you're using buzzwords like itn and gfm do. There logic is meaningless because it only obfuscates any discussion someone tries to have.
They have said they can falsify science while their logic is not falsifiable. They're not omnipotent nor omniscient which they're basically claiming to be.
Edited on 01-12-2018 21:21 |
| 02-12-2018 02:38 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
@Wake, itn and gfm7175, I'll give you guys a break. In 1905 Americans said that powered flight was impossible. The logic of the day was that if God had wanted man to fly he'd have given us wings.
To illustrate this point even Otto Lilienthal's calculations for lift wouldn't allow for it either. See, you guys have history on your side
p. s., Merry Christmas
Edited on 02-12-2018 02:39 |
| 02-12-2018 03:11 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
James___ wrote:
I was referring to how it applies to atmospheric Physics. With the
Bernoulli Equations they probably don't account for the air traveling over the wing to create pressure behind it. This could create back pressure under the wing which would help to create lift from slower moving air. You probably didn't even read the NASA explanation which is not about atmospheric chemistry and physics. Instead you're using buzzwords like itn and gfm do. There logic is meaningless because it only obfuscates any discussion someone tries to have.
They have said they can falsify science while their logic is not falsifiable. They're not omnipotent nor omniscient which they're basically claiming to be.
I have never once used a buzzword... I always clearly define my terms...
It is not MY logic or ITNs logic or ANYONE'S logic... Logic is logic... it is defined by its axioms... it is a closed functional system, so it makes use of proofs... Science can be falsified through conflicting evidence... Logic is unfalsifiable because it is not theorizing anything... no theories are involved in logic... |
| 02-12-2018 04:54 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
I was referring to how it applies to atmospheric Physics. With the
Bernoulli Equations they probably don't account for the air traveling over the wing to create pressure behind it. This could create back pressure under the wing which would help to create lift from slower moving air. You probably didn't even read the NASA explanation which is not about atmospheric chemistry and physics. Instead you're using buzzwords like itn and gfm do. There logic is meaningless because it only obfuscates any discussion someone tries to have.
They have said they can falsify science while their logic is not falsifiable. They're not omnipotent nor omniscient which they're basically claiming to be.
I have never once used a buzzword... I always clearly define my terms...
It is not MY logic or ITNs logic or ANYONE'S logic... Logic is logic... it is defined by its axioms... it is a closed functional system, so it makes use of proofs... Science can be falsified through conflicting evidence... Logic is unfalsifiable because it is not theorizing anything... no theories are involved in logic...
Logic is easily falsifiable. Show where it produces work. Neither you nor itn has shown where YOUR logic accomplishes something.
It's up to YOU to show where it has tangible results.
Besides, you and itn sound like a couple. He did say he lives in a northern state that gets cold just like the state you live in. Logic suggests it's possible that the 2 of you live together.
After all, Seattle usually stays above freezing in the winter. That's why a lot of people like living there, mild weather.
And gfm7175, I do think you're Branner. You see, what's not logical is why people in a climate debate forum would have to defend themselves against two people who wish to debate logic instead.
That disagrees with logic because neither you nor itn think you are in the wrong forum. You're just wasting other people's time with logic you really don't explain.
Litesong as much as said itn was Native American and that's probably why she was banned. That would've let everyone know who you and itn are.
Kind of why no one should post with either of you but they will.
Edited on 02-12-2018 05:04 |
| 02-12-2018 05:15 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
@gfm, I'll be nice and say that you and itn are not 2 Native Americans trolling people in here. To defend both of you I'll say that the both of you lack the necessary intelligence to consider something so you can form your own opinion. Instead using simple logic is all you can grasp. It's not your fault if you're not capable of learning.
This is the answer you've been wanting, right?
Edited on 02-12-2018 05:37 |
| 02-12-2018 06:55 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
James___ wrote:
@Wake, itn and gfm7175, I'll give you guys a break. In 1905 Americans said that powered flight was impossible. The logic of the day was that if God had wanted man to fly he'd have given us wings.
To illustrate this point even Otto Lilienthal's calculations for lift wouldn't allow for it either. See, you guys have history on your side
p. s., Merry Christmas
More random off topic crap.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 02-12-2018 07:00 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
I was referring to how it applies to atmospheric Physics. With the
Bernoulli Equations they probably don't account for the air traveling over the wing to create pressure behind it. This could create back pressure under the wing which would help to create lift from slower moving air. You probably didn't even read the NASA explanation which is not about atmospheric chemistry and physics. Instead you're using buzzwords like itn and gfm do. There logic is meaningless because it only obfuscates any discussion someone tries to have.
They have said they can falsify science while their logic is not falsifiable. They're not omnipotent nor omniscient which they're basically claiming to be.
I have never once used a buzzword... I always clearly define my terms...
It is not MY logic or ITNs logic or ANYONE'S logic... Logic is logic... it is defined by its axioms... it is a closed functional system, so it makes use of proofs... Science can be falsified through conflicting evidence... Logic is unfalsifiable because it is not theorizing anything... no theories are involved in logic...
Logic is easily falsifiable.
Logic is not falsifiable.
James___ wrote:
Show where it produces work.
Not necessary.
James___ wrote:
Neither you nor itn has shown where YOUR logic accomplishes something. Go read a book on logic.
James___ wrote:
It's up to YOU to show where it has tangible results. Go read a book on logic.
James___ wrote:
Besides, you and itn sound like a couple. He did say he lives in a northern state that gets cold just like the state you live in. Logic suggests it's possible that the 2 of you live together.
After all, Seattle usually stays above freezing in the winter. That's why a lot of people like living there, mild weather.
And gfm7175, I do think you're Branner. You see, what's not logical is why people in a climate debate forum would have to defend themselves against two people who wish to debate logic instead.
That disagrees with logic because neither you nor itn think you are in the wrong forum. You're just wasting other people's time with logic you really don't explain.
More random off topic crap.
James___ wrote:
Litesong as much as said itn was Native American and that's probably why she was banned.
Litebeer was a he. I am Native American. I was born in America. You have obviously got a problem with that.
James___ wrote:
That would've let everyone know who you and itn are.
Kind of why no one should post with either of you but they will.
More random off topic crap.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 02-12-2018 07:02 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
James___ wrote:
@gfm, I'll be nice and say that you and itn are not 2 Native Americans I am Native American. I was born in America.
James___ wrote:
trolling people in here. So you figure Native Americans are trolls. Stuff your bigotry.
James___ wrote:
To defend both of you I'll say that the both of you lack the necessary intelligence to consider something so you can form your own opinion. Instead using simple logic is all you can grasp. It's not your fault if you're not capable of learning.
This is the answer you've been wanting, right?
More random off topic crap and insults.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 02-12-2018 17:27 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
@gfm, I'll be nice and say that you and itn are not 2 Native Americans I am Native American. I was born in America.
James___ wrote:
trolling people in here. So you figure Native Americans are trolls. Stuff your bigotry.
James___ wrote:
To defend both of you I'll say that the both of you lack the necessary intelligence to consider something so you can form your own opinion. Instead using simple logic is all you can grasp. It's not your fault if you're not capable of learning.
This is the answer you've been wanting, right?
More random off topic crap and insults.
You and gfm7175 are right. Because science is falsifiable there's no reason to be concerned about the environment. It's not possible to prove we can pollute it or harm it in any way that we would need to be concerned about. |
|
| 02-12-2018 17:45 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
@gfm, I'll be nice and say that you and itn are not 2 Native Americans I am Native American. I was born in America.
James___ wrote:
trolling people in here. So you figure Native Americans are trolls. Stuff your bigotry.
James___ wrote:
To defend both of you I'll say that the both of you lack the necessary intelligence to consider something so you can form your own opinion. Instead using simple logic is all you can grasp. It's not your fault if you're not capable of learning.
This is the answer you've been wanting, right?
More random off topic crap and insults.
You and gfm7175 are right. Because science is falsifiable there's no reason to be concerned about the environment. It's not possible to prove we can pollute it or harm it in any way that we would need to be concerned about.
Strawman argument fallacy... never said I had no concern for the environment. Part of worshipping God is taking good care of the environment he has created. |
| 02-12-2018 18:04 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
@gfm, I'll be nice and say that you and itn are not 2 Native Americans I am Native American. I was born in America.
James___ wrote:
trolling people in here. So you figure Native Americans are trolls. Stuff your bigotry.
James___ wrote:
To defend both of you I'll say that the both of you lack the necessary intelligence to consider something so you can form your own opinion. Instead using simple logic is all you can grasp. It's not your fault if you're not capable of learning.
This is the answer you've been wanting, right?
More random off topic crap and insults.
You and gfm7175 are right. Because science is falsifiable there's no reason to be concerned about the environment. It's not possible to prove we can pollute it or harm it in any way that we would need to be concerned about.
Strawman argument fallacy... never said I had no concern for the environment. Part of worshipping God is taking good care of the environment he has created.
It's not fallacy. I accept yours and it's logic. It even applies to people who claim to be Native American. Such claims are made on falsifiable science. After all, there is only what "is". The past is made up of a falsifiable science called history. Anyone can claim something happened in the past but they can't prove it.
I see why you and itn say that logic is infallible and that's because it can't be proven wrong as you've shown. |
| 02-12-2018 19:20 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
@gfm, I'll be nice and say that you and itn are not 2 Native Americans I am Native American. I was born in America.
James___ wrote:
trolling people in here. So you figure Native Americans are trolls. Stuff your bigotry.
James___ wrote:
To defend both of you I'll say that the both of you lack the necessary intelligence to consider something so you can form your own opinion. Instead using simple logic is all you can grasp. It's not your fault if you're not capable of learning.
This is the answer you've been wanting, right?
More random off topic crap and insults.
You and gfm7175 are right. Because science is falsifiable Science is not falsifiable, James. Theories of science are.
James___ wrote:
there's no reason to be concerned about the environment. No, take a crap on your computer keyboard. Is it polluted?
James___ wrote:
It's not possible to prove we can pollute it Maybe you don't consider that pollution.
James___ wrote:
or harm it in any way that we would need to be concerned about. You aren't concerned about crap on your keyboard?
You are making a void argument, James. You have not specified the 'pollution' concerned.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 02-12-2018 19:21 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
@gfm, I'll be nice and say that you and itn are not 2 Native Americans I am Native American. I was born in America.
James___ wrote:
trolling people in here. So you figure Native Americans are trolls. Stuff your bigotry.
James___ wrote:
To defend both of you I'll say that the both of you lack the necessary intelligence to consider something so you can form your own opinion. Instead using simple logic is all you can grasp. It's not your fault if you're not capable of learning.
This is the answer you've been wanting, right?
More random off topic crap and insults.
You and gfm7175 are right. Because science is falsifiable there's no reason to be concerned about the environment. It's not possible to prove we can pollute it or harm it in any way that we would need to be concerned about.
Strawman argument fallacy... never said I had no concern for the environment. Part of worshipping God is taking good care of the environment he has created.
This particular strawman shows the connection between the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 02-12-2018 19:24 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
@gfm, I'll be nice and say that you and itn are not 2 Native Americans I am Native American. I was born in America.
James___ wrote:
trolling people in here. So you figure Native Americans are trolls. Stuff your bigotry.
James___ wrote:
To defend both of you I'll say that the both of you lack the necessary intelligence to consider something so you can form your own opinion. Instead using simple logic is all you can grasp. It's not your fault if you're not capable of learning.
This is the answer you've been wanting, right?
More random off topic crap and insults.
You and gfm7175 are right. Because science is falsifiable there's no reason to be concerned about the environment. It's not possible to prove we can pollute it or harm it in any way that we would need to be concerned about.
Strawman argument fallacy... never said I had no concern for the environment. Part of worshipping God is taking good care of the environment he has created.
It's not fallacy. I accept yours and it's logic. It even applies to people who claim to be Native American. Such claims are made on falsifiable science. After all, there is only what "is". The past is made up of a falsifiable science called history. History is not falsifiable, James.
James___ wrote:
Anyone can claim something happened in the past but they can't prove it. True. Historians work by uncovering evidence of past events. They show the evidence. That's all.
James___ wrote:
I see why you and itn say that logic is infallible and that's because it can't be proven wrong as you've shown.
You can't prove logic either, James. It simply is.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 02-12-2018 19:27 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
@gfm, I'll be nice and say that you and itn are not 2 Native Americans I am Native American. I was born in America.
James___ wrote:
trolling people in here. So you figure Native Americans are trolls. Stuff your bigotry.
James___ wrote:
To defend both of you I'll say that the both of you lack the necessary intelligence to consider something so you can form your own opinion. Instead using simple logic is all you can grasp. It's not your fault if you're not capable of learning.
This is the answer you've been wanting, right?
More random off topic crap and insults.
You and gfm7175 are right. Because science is falsifiable there's no reason to be concerned about the environment. It's not possible to prove we can pollute it or harm it in any way that we would need to be concerned about.
Strawman argument fallacy... never said I had no concern for the environment. Part of worshipping God is taking good care of the environment he has created.
This particular strawman shows the connection between the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green.
itn, I am agreeing with you. There "is". That is all logic allows for. Everything else is falsifiable science. It is not possible to define anything because every definition is falsifiable.
This is the basis of yours and gfm7175's logic. That is why it's not fallible.
Besides, what is American? We have to define that. Yet if someone says that the definition is wrong then it became a falsifiable definition.
You know itn what's funny is how stupid you and gfm7175 are. Both of you are probably Native Americans but can't even say it. No pride in who you are. That's what defines losers.
Edited on 02-12-2018 19:32 |
| 02-12-2018 20:20 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
I'll see if I can attach the image.
Do ya'all know what's cool about this? This holy link mentions a problem with flow. It's determining how many layers there are in a flow. https://medium.com/iskakaushik/navier-stokes-equation-for-a-dummies-15421f15af18.
With the different layers in our atmosphere, they each can be considered as a flow. The difference would be how https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Mathematics-of-Satellite-Motion effects matter/gases.
This could then be used to show that gravity's angular potential can act as work by increasing the angular momentum or spin of atmospheric gases.
How cool is that? It could take me a few years of playing around with it but when finished I'll be more familiar with calculus
edited to add: this is where gravity's ability to accelerate matter/gases might be able to to be modified to replace pressure when considering Boltzmann's constant. If nothing else it could allow for a model for converting gravity's angular potential to accelerate into kinetic energy.
That is sort of a round about manner of saying that the Bernoulli Equations work but we want to explain it differently. There are no layers in the air such as he is discussing. The angle of attack and the reaction to that is plainly solved for any speeds under that of sound. Since everything we're discussing acts at less than the speed of sound do not take another lesson you've just discovered and try to make it an answer to God, the Universe and Everything as you've done in the past.
I was referring to how it applies to atmospheric Physics. With the
Bernoulli Equations they probably don't account for the air traveling over the wing to create pressure behind it. This could create back pressure under the wing which would help to create lift from slower moving air. You probably didn't even read the NASA explanation which is not about atmospheric chemistry and physics. Instead you're using buzzwords like itn and gfm do. There logic is meaningless because it only obfuscates any discussion someone tries to have.
They have said they can falsify science while their logic is not falsifiable. They're not omnipotent nor omniscient which they're basically claiming to be.
They actually do have to deal with the speed of air over the airfoil as "layers" since the friction of the air against the wing surface has to be accounted for. But that doesn't mean that has any connection with anything we're talking about. Keep learning things but don't be quick to explain anything with them. |
| 02-12-2018 21:43 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
I'll see if I can attach the image.
Do ya'all know what's cool about this? This holy link mentions a problem with flow. It's determining how many layers there are in a flow. https://medium.com/iskakaushik/navier-stokes-equation-for-a-dummies-15421f15af18.
With the different layers in our atmosphere, they each can be considered as a flow. The difference would be how https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Mathematics-of-Satellite-Motion effects matter/gases.
This could then be used to show that gravity's angular potential can act as work by increasing the angular momentum or spin of atmospheric gases.
How cool is that? It could take me a few years of playing around with it but when finished I'll be more familiar with calculus
edited to add: this is where gravity's ability to accelerate matter/gases might be able to to be modified to replace pressure when considering Boltzmann's constant. If nothing else it could allow for a model for converting gravity's angular potential to accelerate into kinetic energy.
That is sort of a round about manner of saying that the Bernoulli Equations work but we want to explain it differently. There are no layers in the air such as he is discussing. The angle of attack and the reaction to that is plainly solved for any speeds under that of sound. Since everything we're discussing acts at less than the speed of sound do not take another lesson you've just discovered and try to make it an answer to God, the Universe and Everything as you've done in the past.
I was referring to how it applies to atmospheric Physics. With the
Bernoulli Equations they probably don't account for the air traveling over the wing to create pressure behind it. This could create back pressure under the wing which would help to create lift from slower moving air. You probably didn't even read the NASA explanation which is not about atmospheric chemistry and physics. Instead you're using buzzwords like itn and gfm do. There logic is meaningless because it only obfuscates any discussion someone tries to have.
They have said they can falsify science while their logic is not falsifiable. They're not omnipotent nor omniscient which they're basically claiming to be.
They actually do have to deal with the speed of air over the airfoil as "layers" since the friction of the air against the wing surface has to be accounted for. But that doesn't mean that has any connection with anything we're talking about. Keep learning things but don't be quick to explain anything with them.
Anymore I am going to agree with itn and gfm7175. If I can't see it then it isn't "is". This means there's no Great Spirit/God or environment. Their logic is not falsifiable. |
| 02-12-2018 22:27 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
I'll see if I can attach the image.
Do ya'all know what's cool about this? This holy link mentions a problem with flow. It's determining how many layers there are in a flow. https://medium.com/iskakaushik/navier-stokes-equation-for-a-dummies-15421f15af18.
With the different layers in our atmosphere, they each can be considered as a flow. The difference would be how https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Mathematics-of-Satellite-Motion effects matter/gases.
This could then be used to show that gravity's angular potential can act as work by increasing the angular momentum or spin of atmospheric gases.
How cool is that? It could take me a few years of playing around with it but when finished I'll be more familiar with calculus
edited to add: this is where gravity's ability to accelerate matter/gases might be able to to be modified to replace pressure when considering Boltzmann's constant. If nothing else it could allow for a model for converting gravity's angular potential to accelerate into kinetic energy.
That is sort of a round about manner of saying that the Bernoulli Equations work but we want to explain it differently. There are no layers in the air such as he is discussing. The angle of attack and the reaction to that is plainly solved for any speeds under that of sound. Since everything we're discussing acts at less than the speed of sound do not take another lesson you've just discovered and try to make it an answer to God, the Universe and Everything as you've done in the past.
I was referring to how it applies to atmospheric Physics. With the
Bernoulli Equations they probably don't account for the air traveling over the wing to create pressure behind it. This could create back pressure under the wing which would help to create lift from slower moving air. You probably didn't even read the NASA explanation which is not about atmospheric chemistry and physics. Instead you're using buzzwords like itn and gfm do. There logic is meaningless because it only obfuscates any discussion someone tries to have.
They have said they can falsify science while their logic is not falsifiable. They're not omnipotent nor omniscient which they're basically claiming to be.
They actually do have to deal with the speed of air over the airfoil as "layers" since the friction of the air against the wing surface has to be accounted for. But that doesn't mean that has any connection with anything we're talking about. Keep learning things but don't be quick to explain anything with them.
What ARE you talking about?? You two have wandered over electron spin, calculus, air friction, a couple of pointless math formulas, and now Bernoulli's law. What's next?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 02-12-2018 22:53 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
I'll see if I can attach the image.
Do ya'all know what's cool about this? This holy link mentions a problem with flow. It's determining how many layers there are in a flow. https://medium.com/iskakaushik/navier-stokes-equation-for-a-dummies-15421f15af18.
With the different layers in our atmosphere, they each can be considered as a flow. The difference would be how https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Mathematics-of-Satellite-Motion effects matter/gases.
This could then be used to show that gravity's angular potential can act as work by increasing the angular momentum or spin of atmospheric gases.
How cool is that? It could take me a few years of playing around with it but when finished I'll be more familiar with calculus
edited to add: this is where gravity's ability to accelerate matter/gases might be able to to be modified to replace pressure when considering Boltzmann's constant. If nothing else it could allow for a model for converting gravity's angular potential to accelerate into kinetic energy.
That is sort of a round about manner of saying that the Bernoulli Equations work but we want to explain it differently. There are no layers in the air such as he is discussing. The angle of attack and the reaction to that is plainly solved for any speeds under that of sound. Since everything we're discussing acts at less than the speed of sound do not take another lesson you've just discovered and try to make it an answer to God, the Universe and Everything as you've done in the past.
I was referring to how it applies to atmospheric Physics. With the
Bernoulli Equations they probably don't account for the air traveling over the wing to create pressure behind it. This could create back pressure under the wing which would help to create lift from slower moving air. You probably didn't even read the NASA explanation which is not about atmospheric chemistry and physics. Instead you're using buzzwords like itn and gfm do. There logic is meaningless because it only obfuscates any discussion someone tries to have.
They have said they can falsify science while their logic is not falsifiable. They're not omnipotent nor omniscient which they're basically claiming to be.
They actually do have to deal with the speed of air over the airfoil as "layers" since the friction of the air against the wing surface has to be accounted for. But that doesn't mean that has any connection with anything we're talking about. Keep learning things but don't be quick to explain anything with them.
What ARE you talking about?? You two have wandered over electron spin, calculus, air friction, a couple of pointless math formulas, and now Bernoulli's law. What's next?
You are of course right itn. Nothing matters yet here you are. Luckily we have you and gfm7175 to remind us how meaningless life is. Even the Great Spirit can't be proven so is a fallacy.
Do you know that some fools believe that the universe and the life on our planet was created? Just another falsifiable theory. You are right in that there is freedom in having no belief in a God, in no right or wrong.
Edited on 02-12-2018 23:02 |