Firstly - I do not call you idioit, I genereally speak that a person telling a other person is a idiot - then he is a idiot himselfe.

I have no problem what so ever to agree that I with a lot of circumstances have been a idiot, both in language and act.

Tristian, you both now we two does not agree, and most times you enjoy stir'ing up the mood on forum. Again, I am not bottered that discussion again, even if you try these cheap shots and commenting my lack of english knowlege.

But george_tsiros, as jibber points out - I DID NOT call you an idiot, I spoke that people screaming things like you did makes you look like a idiot generally - again this does not mean I point at you and call you a idiot.

And a other thing, mostly I think Lerts idea's could be thought about in a opium cave, but he still contribute positive to the forum.. on his way, that's why I bought him a lisence, becuase he's a damn funny lad, even if I don't get his points most of time.
That some people goes all out fury on the keyboard for that is pointless, and I don't see the need. If you just are going to join a thread to point out your smarter than him and then starts to call him a idiot, I don't see the point of even commenting in the thread at all. My guess is that Lerts is laughing his ass off when reading this utterly silly attacks on him for something he most likely writes out of pure fun.

Man, this forum has sinked down to a low level lately.

Quote from The Very End :

My guess is that Lerts is laughing his ass off when reading this utterly silly attacks on him for something he most likely writes out of pure fun.

Man, this forum has sinked down to a low level lately.

so he's a troll, not an idiot?
silly attacks? they are... attacks? asking him to prove his nonsensical ideas... is attack?

Yes, I would very much call it attacks when you start flaming a person and call him a idiot.

And he's not trolling, trolling is something else. Lerts make threads that he posts in and follows the subject, is not going off topic - but he tells his..veiws of things. Obviously I think he's making them for the fun of it, and I find it very much fun by reading it. Specially that experma race car

they are not attacks. his "views" are those of an ignorant, he is incompetent with basic tools of knowledge and if 10 pages of nonsense is not enough for you to call it as such, then i'm afraid i have to say that you can't tell the difference yourself. when you smell a shit, you say "this smells like shit". if you smell a rose, you say "this smells like a rose". if me calling the stench by its name, is "an attack", then fine... call it that way. but since you accept that what he says is nonsense, what problem do you have if i call it as such? or do you actually think he's on to something? go on, i'd like to hear what you think about what he says. if you can't follow it, however, i will have to ask you to step off this discussion and refrain from judging my comments.

If there is anyone that should stop judging and step away from the discussion it should be you, aswell as me for that matter if it's any better.

I wondering if you even read what I writes, what part of this sentence "mostly I think Lerts idea's could be thought about in a opium cave" did you not get?
Doesn't that clearify my point of it?
I don't support his veiws on things, but I find them entertaining and valuable for a ...discussion somewhat. To start calling names is killing the discussion and only ends up in a flamewar.

Quote from The Very End :

If there is anyone that should stop judging and step away from the discussion it should be you, aswell as me for that matter if it's any better.

I wondering if you even read what I writes, what part of this sentence "mostly I think Lerts idea's could be thought about in a opium cave" did you not get?
Doesn't that clearify my point of it?
I don't support his veiws on things, but I find them entertaining and valuable for a ...discussion somewhat. To start calling names is killing the discussion and only ends up in a flamewar.

+1. This man speaks very intelligent words. I agree!

Quote from The Very End :

I don't support his veiws on things, but I find them entertaining and valuable for a ...discussion somewhat. To start calling names is killing the discussion and only ends up in a flamewar.

Actually, you've openly admitted that you haven't got a clue what he's trying to be on about. As physics is your 80th language you haven't got the faintest idea whether or not it is 'fun', 'correct', 'wrong', 'stupid', 'interesting', etc.

And that means that you can't tell what is an unfair attack or desevered critisism.

Not all of us want to pretend to like everyone and not say bad things about people that, ultimately, get what they deserve. A spade is a spade, and political correctness should NEVER stop you calling them like that.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Actually, you've openly admitted that you haven't got a clue what he's trying to be on about. As physics is your 80th language you haven't got the faintest idea whether or not it is 'fun', 'correct', 'wrong', 'stupid', 'interesting', etc.

And that means that you can't tell what is an unfair attack or desevered critisism.

Not all of us want to pretend to like everyone and not say bad things about people that, ultimately, get what they deserve. A spade is a spade, and political correctness should NEVER stop you calling them like that.

Yeah for that part you need to understand the laws of black holes and rocket science.
Seriously, do you have anything better than trying to prove your points and make other people feel bad about themself? I guess it's somehow... exciting for a person like you to get these idiots like me to go mentall all over place on forum.

As you said - yeah, I have mostly not a clue what so ever what he talks about, and physics is, and will never be my strong side, aswell as english generally, but I find it funny that you even botters to discuss in a topic that's clearly ain't got a realistic point of veiw on physics, when you know so much better. I mean, topic is titled "Lert's ideas and theories", if you belive you'll find knowlege in here, well, in short - you won't.

If you really knew that much as you would like us to belive, you would not need to nag down on people or try to be "over" other people to prove your points Tristan.


But I'll follow my own advice and step back from this discussion since it's really no point in it.


Edit 2 : And george_tsiros, it's not like I ignored what you wrote or tried to take the easy way out, but I am not going to dicsuss with persons like you, that I clearly just by reading your posts can see it's no point in discussing with. And personally I think you should get out of this topic instead of throwing out silly comments and attack people because you know the best. You should, just by looking on this topic, know who lerts is and that most people don't take him serious, but find him funny. Now, I guess it ain't allowed to be that without the captain "obivious(es)" comes tells us what's right and wrong.

I'm not in this thread to find knowledge. I was in it mostly to try and correct Lerts. But as he completely failed to even explain what he's trying to do clearly I gave up. I'm now in here mostly to stop ignorant people with daft ideas about getting on with everyone from completely misunderstanding the last few pages of posts.

And yes, if you don't know what's being talked about, how do you know it's an attack or justified critisism? If I post E=mc^-2 and tell you that it is right, when people tell me I'm an ignorant twat (and if I did post that it would be deserved) is that an attack or a completely fair critisism? The latter I think you'll find.

Quote from tristancliffe :

If I post E=mc^-2 and tell you that it is right, when people tell me I'm an ignorant twat (and if I did post that it would be deserved) is that an attack or a completely fair critisism? The latter I think you'll find.

You could also tell that person that it's not true, wrong, false statement, nonsense, against all facts, etc... instead of calling him an ignorant twat. But i guess you don't understand that, because you don't see a point in "generally being nice to other people" (even if you don't know them).

lerts "believes" that the knowledge we have is due to some kind of conspiracy and/or bias. he can't back his opinions yet he still thinks that "our" knowledge is "wrong" "biased" and whatever.

that is stupid. any other word and you are showing disrespect to those who are not stupid.

and an other thing.

TVE didn't respond to any of the other things i said (which is the correct thing to do, good for him). he can't argue them. but he also can't keep quiet, so upon seeing an easy target ("omg tsiros is mean") he is trying to discredit me because i used the word "idiot". as if reality is dependent on my choice of words... as if, if i used nice words, then my arguments somehow become "better"

that's bullshit plain and simple.

you want to argue that conservation of energy is not? prepare to be ridiculed unless you can back it up.

Pfff!

The point you guys don't get is... TVE is a nice person (i've never read a bad post towards anybody from him, and he posts a lot). Nice people will always point out/at bad things... giving pointers that you could also try to simply be nice to other people (but thats probably out of your world). Because being nice, instead of calling people names (even if they maybe deserve it) makes a better world. But it's ok if you disagree with that, to each their own.

It's not to discredit somebody at all by the way. It's really just like saying "hey, you could say this in a nicer way". Your arguments don't become better, but the other person might not feel offended, because you didn't call him names.

I think you are right when you say most of the stuff in this thread is complete bullshit, because honestly, it is! But you don't have to call people names because of that... it doesn't help at all.

But ok, i'll stop aswell. Go ahead and be harsh to the people you meet in your life. I will try not to... what goes around, comes around.

"Go ahead and be harsh to the people you meet in your life."
yes, right. that's what i do.
because i do not decide how i behave, i am just harsh to the people i meet. without choice, everyone is treated harshly. that's what i do... right?

and if i say that what you said is stupid, i'll be "harsh", right?

take it back. what you said is stupid. you are either encouraging me to be harsh to people (which is just plain wrong), or you making the hypothesis that i am generaly harsh (which is also just plain wrong)

LOL! It starts to amuse me...

I didn't want to "label" you as the person who is harsh to all the people you meet. I wanted to make a point there. Which was that...

It seemed like you didn't care about the advice of "you could also try not to call people idiots, because it's more friendly not to do so, even if in fact, it may be true". Or in other words, it seemed like you wouldn't care about being harsh to other people. Therefor i was "poking" you a little.

Sorry if i went too far there.

i have nothing against george tsiros though he insulted me he praised me before

different size marbles fall at same rate down a ramp, i discussed it before maybe this convinces you:

quote:
Originally posted by raaaid:
same mass, half rotational speed, cuadruple moment of inertia implies double rotational energy

so the same mass but with double radius ends with same linear energy but double rotatioanl energy

Wrong. "same mass, half rotational speed, cuadruple moment of inertia implies double rotational energy" No, it does not and I don't know where you got this from. It does not have quadruple moment of inertia, only double, since angular velocity is only half the original and moment of inertia is quadruple.

Let's calculate it. So, we have two spheres, first one m=1 (kg), r=1 (m), second one m=1 (kg), r=2 (m). Moment of inertia for a sphere is I=(2mr^2)/5.

First one rotates at an angular velocity omega, second one at omega/2, right? Then, rotational kinetic energy of the first sphere is:

Wkr1=(I*Omega^2)/2=([(2mr^2)/5]*Omega^2)/2=m*r^2*Omega^2/5.

Now, for the second sphere:

Wkr2=(I*(Omega/2)^2)/2=([(2m(2r)^2) /5]*(Omega/2)^2)/2=m*r^2*Omega^2/5.

Look, what a coincidence! They are the same!!

What you are forgetting here raaaid is, that a double sphere will have QUADRUPLE moment of inertia, not double.

Now let's calculate it AGAIN, this time using moments of inertia :

First sphere will have angular momentum:

Gama1=I1*Omega1=((2mr^2)/5)*(v/r)=(2mrv)/5 since I=(2mr^2)/5 and Omega=v/r.

and, since Wkr=(I*Omega^2)/2 and Gama=I*Omega, we can derive

Wkr=Gama^2/(2*I)=(2mrv)^2/(5^2*(2mr^2)/5) => Wkr1=(2mv^2)/5

Second sphere will have angular momentum:

Gama2=I2*Omega2=((2m((2r)^2))/5)*(v/2r)=((2m((2r)^2))/5)*(v/2r)= (4mrv)/5

from which we derive rotational kinetic energy same way as above, Wkr=Gama^2/(2*I)

So, Wkr2=Gama2^2/(2*I2)=[(4mrv)/5]^2/[(2*m(2r)^2)/5]=, believe or not, exactly the same as for the first sphere:=> Wkr2=(2mv^2)/5.

Again, half the rotational velocity with double the radius does not imply quadruple angular momentum, only double, since it is the product of angular velocity (which is halved) and moment of inertia (which is quadrupled).

All clear now?

from here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru ... 23110283/m/9821018375/p/4

in fact what i say is:

current physics state that different sizes marbles will fall down a ramp at the same rate and this was exactly galileo experiment

i tested it myself and i could check than he bigger one fell 1st

this was due to george inviting me to test physics by myself just as galileo, so i told him i had done galileo experiment with different results

i dont think this is bull sheet, bigger marbles fall down a ramp faster than smaller ramp, this contradics current physics and anybody can test it

now will you care to check if you are being lied as i did, or youll just think that theres no the slightest mistake in basic physics, that when most agree it must be true

im sorry to say that is obvious in the other forum there are more helpfull people

you haven't solved the problem i set.

dont know how to solve it, i just passed adavnced mechanics but not yet basic physics, i miss many things and many dont remember, infact all i learnt incollege i forget it soon, i just learn what i study for fun

though im much self didact at physics

here this may convince you:

I am not sure what the strating conditions of your balls are.
However, one of the most famous experiments ever performed was by Galileo,
some 400 years ago. He wanted to know whether heavy objects fell faster
than light ones. The famous story is that he went to the top of the leaning
tower of Pisa and dropped two objects, one heavy and one light. He saw that
they fell at the same rate! It has been shown that this was just a story
because Galileo did not have any way to measure the rate at which the
objects fell (he did not have a camera or other high speed recording
device). What he did do is make a ramp out of wood, and roll balls of
various weights down this ramp. The ramp allowed him extra time to measure
how long it took for the balls to reach the bottom. It took the same length
of time, no matter how heavy the balls were. This was the basis for a
well-known law of acceleration due to gravity.

from:

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00210.htm

plz you george or somebody tell me you believe current physics say that different size marbles fall down a ramp at the same rate, this is begining to upset me

the size of the marble alone is not important. are both marbles of the same material? are they both solid? then both marbles will roll (not fall. roll.) the same.

i still haven't understood what you are trying to say about physics being a lie or anything like that. when you get to the point that you can solve this problem on your own, then come back again. if you don't know how it works, how can you say that it is a lie? i would say that you think some of them are lies because you haven't understood them correctly.

i don't know about galileo not doing an experiment with the tower of pisa, since it is not very difficult to test if objects fall at the same rate by observing their time of impact.

thanks george i apreciate you admit both small and big marble will fall down the ramp at same speed,(roll is not an adequate word since actually bigger one will roll slower,w is slower) i was determined to leave the forum if nobody admitted that

now switching subject:

i was studing with a finger in the midle of my sight and i noticed that i saw better the letters that were in the edge of my finger

i noticed actually you can see the aura with this method, focusing on the leeters and concentrating on the edge of the finger

i saw a clear white line around the finger and in the point of the finger some violet light, and i can repeat it whenever i want, i did it in the morning and in the afternon
plz try it

Quote from lerts :

thanks george i apreciate you admit both small and big marble will fall down the ramp at same speed,(roll is not an adequate word since actually bigger one will roll slower,w is slower) i was determined to leave the forum if nobody admitted that

now switching subject:

i was studing with a finger in the midle of my sight and i noticed that i saw better the letters that were in the edge of my finger

i noticed actually you can see the aura with this method, focusing on the leeters and concentrating on the edge of the finger

i saw a clear white line around the finger and in the point of the finger some violet light, and i can repeat it whenever i want, i did it in the morning and in the afternon
plz try it

Only if you ignore wind and friction If you don't it becomes more complicated - bigger diameter = lower friction, but more aerodynamic drag (which increases with speed squared).

As for the aura are you sure that's just not the blur because your eyes don't focus that well... And because you have two eyes causing an overlayed parallax effect... That's why I get a blurry edge to things close up.

yep have you tried it?, its easy, you can move your finger to the best distance

the white glow could be due to seeing the edge blurred due to being focused on the letters but if you watch the point of the finger youll see there the white glow extends farther, this cant be due to seeing it blurred, in fact i saw violet colour there once

well
i calculated it
the acceleration (linear) of a sphere (or spherical object) of mass m, moment of inertia i, and radius r that rolls down a slope of incline angle b is

a = m*r^2*g*sin(b) / i

as you can see, this predicts correctly that (as seen in the youtube video with ball, disc and the ring) between objects with same mass same r but different i, the one with the biggest i falls last. in the video it was the thing that has the mass around the edge. the ring.

also, the smallest acceleration attainable (for given r and m) is if all the mass is distributed around the edge.
in this case:
i=m*r^2 thus: acceleration_minimum= g*sin(b)

i hope everything is clear now.

with this formula you can predict the behaviour of objects rolling down a ramp.

balls of same mass but different r? it depends on the distribution... if the material is the same and the construction of the ball is solid you can substitute in the formula, the expression that gives the moment of inertia of a sphere. with that one, lerts, you can see what physics says about balls of same material but different r. they roll the same.

i think that all solid balls indepedently of size or density roll down a ramp at same speed, in fact this is what galileo is supposed to have proved

when i end my vacation ill buy the biggest still ball roller and race it with a small one

though physics say they should fall at same rate ill prove with a video actually bigger ball falls first

the problem is that whom ever saw that video would not even know how physics states they will fall

lerts...instead of trying to prove and disprove all these theories, grab two balls of different sizes (nothing meant by that btw :razz, say a marble and a ping pong ball. Both have relatively smooth surfaces, which will rule out friction. Find something to use as a ramp, say a long piece of timber. Make some sort of contraption so that both will start rolling at the same time (place a ruler in front of them and lift it up to start, for example). Then set a video camera or something at the end so you can see afterwards exaxtly how much was between them (or none in your case). Then you have positive results, and can draw up as many theories as you like, based upon your findings.

If you want to see do they fall at the same rate (you seem to be jumping between falling and rolling), do much the same thing, but without the ramp. And ditto for the reults...