also why are you using | instead of , ?
also*2:
just ask him to write a program in whatever language he wants, that takes 10 numbers and writes them in correct order.
also*2:
just ask him to write a program in whatever language he wants, that takes 10 numbers and writes them in correct order.
\m/
BRAIN****
\m/
i actually wrote an interpreter for it... for my calculator.
Last edited by george_tsiros, .
what mistake, you ignorant fool? i derived and gave you the formula that gives you the acceleration of any spherical object, rotating down a ramp, given its mass, moment of inertia on the axis of rotation and radius... what if i was initialy wrong at my guess? (which isn't always wrong. it is correct if the balls are hollow...)
- i can see the future!
- no you can't.
- stop making me feel bad!!!
see? it's just stupid.
also, who the **** is tomba? in any case, if anyone got so upset by a forum discussion and he left, he obviously has issues that need to be taken care of. nothing life-altering is taking place here. your life stays the same no matter what goes on on forums. ffs.
well i don't have a case. never understood the reason for a case anyway, since i swap hardware in and out so often a case is just getting in the way. also being a ghetto modder doesn't help either...
the case for the predator is nice, as i read in a review.
hum
ok, here are my 2c
in normal orientation, the car uses some of the downforce to aid the tyres in keeping the car going forward. remember it takes quite a bit more power to overcome wind resistance the faster you go.
if a car goes with the speed that gives it downforce equal to its weight, then the moment it starts going left and up the ramp it will start wheelspinning, i think. could be wrong tho. going faster, you have more downforce but also more wind resistance... you need higher speed to get more downforce but you also need more power delivered at the wheels to overcome the greater wind resistance
ok, here are my 2c
in normal orientation, the car uses some of the downforce to aid the tyres in keeping the car going forward. remember it takes quite a bit more power to overcome wind resistance the faster you go.
if a car goes with the speed that gives it downforce equal to its weight, then the moment it starts going left and up the ramp it will start wheelspinning, i think. could be wrong tho. going faster, you have more downforce but also more wind resistance... you need higher speed to get more downforce but you also need more power delivered at the wheels to overcome the greater wind resistance
yes. a 750W psu for a card that has 36W peak power consumption.
very sensible.
unless you plan getting a 4870x2 or something crazy like three-way sli of 9800GT cards, you've wasted a lot of money on the psu. if you DIDN'T spend a lot of money on that psu, then your psu is of low quality and quite more probable to introduce problems than a 400W at the same money.
this thread will make half of the physicists visiting the forum slit their wrists while weeping uncontrollably and explode the other half's heads into tiny tiny bits of colorful confeti
and since we are all so on topic i would like to ask more info about scoobyrbac's avatar.
it's the most stable element
i would like to, for once more, point out that he can't solve a simple 2 variable system of equation, doesn't even check his calculations, can't solve basic mechanics and confuses philosophy, science and religion. also, he doesn't seem to understand what a logical fallacy is. in fact, i expect him to consider 'logic' as some kind of conspiracy...
they're into your mind lerts. they are controlling you...
they're into your mind lerts. they are controlling you...
that's where my rev limiter kicks in and i have a '95 1.4 lancia delta
yeah yeah, i know, paint it blue, sent it off a cliff... har har very funny.
so far what i have seen from you... inability to solve basic math, inability to calculate basic newtonian mechanics.
i have shown some things, things you could not do (and things you did wrong)
my work here is done. if you can't understand this, your ****ing problem, not mine. if there is even one who can say that my formula is wrong, i'd like to hear it. On the other hand, as far as science is concerned, you are an illiterate. go on with your nonsense, noone will stop you. But with your level of incompetence and ignorance you do not have any right to make comments about physics, it is disrespectful.
i have shown some things, things you could not do (and things you did wrong)
my work here is done. if you can't understand this, your ****ing problem, not mine. if there is even one who can say that my formula is wrong, i'd like to hear it. On the other hand, as far as science is concerned, you are an illiterate. go on with your nonsense, noone will stop you. But with your level of incompetence and ignorance you do not have any right to make comments about physics, it is disrespectful.
so what? i gave you the formula that you can use to see what "physics" says about balls rolling down on inclines. did you notice that i said "that's what i think" ?
what "most" physicists say is what i said. if they don't say what physics says, then they are not physicists. read the ****ing formula. no physicist will JUST say "this will happen" or "that will happen". i gave you a reason why.
if you just say what you think or believe, that is not science. if you explain why (like i did with the formula) THEN it is science. if you can't explain why (i am sorry, but i am talking about people like you now, who have not studied basic physics but they still want to say about what is correct and what is wrong) then you are not doing science.
so it was a different experiment. or you and him live in different realities. or you have been doing a lot of drugs again.
too many nubs here sayin', when they should be askin'
dword.
dword.
i don't understand why you are still talking about this...i gave you the formula. stop saying that they are lying to you if you can't understand what is going on. you said you haven't studied basics physics enough yet.
i gave you a formula that can answer all your questions... if you disregard air resistance and rolling resistance, it is correct... what is your problem now?
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 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.
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.
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.
you haven't solved the problem i set.
"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)
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)
wankel has some inherent flaws not due to bad engineering but due to its very nature. that is what tristan is talking about. pretty much like why they are not using two strokes any more... even though they have more power less weight and less complexity than 4 strokes, the 4T ones are now better because no matter how much you develop a two stroke you can't manipulate the gases burn as neatly as you can in a 4T.
imnsho
imnsho
it goes at exactly the speed of sound. that's what sound is anyway. mechanical waves propagating through the air.
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.
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.
Last edited by george_tsiros, .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG