here you go, then. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

maybe you want to read it more slowly, i dunno (talking about the earlier url. not the one in this post) . i'm not even english and i can understand what it says pretty well.

I see. I hadn't go that impression from the posts well above but if that is the type of claim being made then so be it

Just started to solve mysteries using Lerts' catalitic energy. I already found something quite interesting.

Microsoft's Xbox logo have been existing for ages already, nor they always copyrighted it:

https://www.ps2repairs.co.uk/c ... /images/xbox_logo_new.jpg

But when you take a look at the shape and all, it looks quite simular to this:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com ... 3f3e1798.jpg?v=1182461450

Which makes me think that Microsoft copied an existing design and they could be sued for it.

Did I get the Lertsomania right??

george if you ike physics you must find this interesting: imagine a double theterball floating in space like this one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi ... lifoide_doble_espiral.png

you can see that angular momentm tends to go from a given value to infinite( or energy conservation will be broken cause if speed halfs as radius doubles where does that energy go if its an isolated system)

with infinite time this theterball will acquire infinite momentum

problem is that math of this is yet too complex for me

what do you think of this concept

what the hell are you talking about!?

do you even have something SPECIFIC in mind or are you writing things randomly???

here more clear:

take this double theterbal floating in space:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e222/raaaid/theter.jpg

ill analize momentum and energy of it with a theter radius of 1 m initial an 2 m final

instead of analizing rotational angular momentum of a weight in each center of each tether i take 2 weihts of 1 kg each with 1 m radius from center A and i analize rotational moment or energy as linear from that center A, that should not make any difference

v1 rotational=2m/s

v1 translational=2m/S

radius1b=1m

radiu 1a=1m

kin energy1=1/2*m*(vrot+vtrans)^2=1/2*2*(2+2)^2=16

Mrot1=2kg*2m/s*1m1a=4

Mtrans1=2kg*2m/s*1m r1b=4

M1=4+4=8

kin enrgy2=2kg/2(vrot2+vtrans2)^2=16

M2=Mrot2+Mtrans2=2kg*vrot2*1r2a+2kg*vtrans2*2r2b=2*vrot2+4*vtrans2=8

so the equation system which gives rot and trans speeds 2 are:

(x+y)^2=16
2x+4y=8

solution=
x=12
y=-4

a negative solution for a translation speed is imposible, without to mention it started positive, did it reverse or cons of momentum is wrong, at least in the case of a double theterball

i do not understand a single thing. is there even one out there who understand what this guy is saying? at least roughly?

wtf is a theterball? tetherball? the toy? we are talking about the toy?

rotational speed is not measured in 'm/s'

everything you write is a horrid soup of bad physics

if there is even one out there that can actually make sense of all this... i am willing to hear

a theterball yes the toy, i see is not studied in physics, in fact if i search for it and angular momentum most of what find on the net is by me

http://www.hoopsplus.com/nss-f ... tdoorequipment/tether.jpg

is very interesting, suppose you have a tetherball at an initial speed of 1 m/s with an initial radius of 2 m and its wrapping inwards

what speed will have the ball when the radius of the tetherball is1 m?

i take rotational speed as linear because in fact being the weights eccentric i can consider this rotation as actualy another translation around this center of gravity of both weights

i was searching for long how linear momentum is transformed into angular momentum and never find a way, like in a yoyo that transforms linear momentum into angular one

but found a way: consider the yoyo as composed of 2 weights 1 m away from the center ofgravity, like this i can consider rotation as actually translation around the cog

that is substituing the disc shape yoyo by a bar with weights on the extremes that have identical moment of inertia than the disc

in order to not neglect anithing i also consider that the weights can spin freely on gymballs, keeping a constant orientation as they rotate around the cog

linear motion is transformed into angular momentum when forces are perpendicular to the motion vector

it's called circular motion

about the rest, i will not even start explaining.

you should really really study basic mechanics first, learn how momentum is used and after you have completed the chapters about linear motion, circular motion etc then come back

i passed mechanics with a 7 on 10 and never studied a tetherball in college as you

how do you dare to talk physics with me? im 8 subjects from being an engineer, i spend several hours a day thinking of mechanics for the plesure of it no for money

im a researcher on mechanics for free, almost titulated

who are you to talk to me like that? a guy who got a title to make his living and dont give a dam for physics as is proved in your not knowing what a tehter is and not willing to know how it works

i want to learn physics you seem to believe you know it all and you are better than me

from the future consider my physics discussions as not intended to pass your judgemment but adressed to everbody

I already AM an engineer, and it all sounds like rubbish to me. Not knowing what a tehter is when you DON'T SPELL IT PROPERLY does let him off the hook. If you'd written tetherball he might have known, and if you clarified it was the toy then that would have been better.

What does titulated mean? Sounds like an operation to add tits to somebody.

I hope you fail your remaining exams, because the world will be a dangerous place if engineers like you are on the loose.

i spelled tetherball several times before it got boring and just wrote tether

and dont worry nice people like you balance this world for bad engineers and i dont wish you bad man

is it that with so many college people nobodys gonna point to what is wrong just say you have no idea

well lerts....open up to more people rather than think among yourself, you will see more blindspots from other's perspective. most maybe worthless, but there could be something that you need a lot. and you know....it seems to be you lack some basic socializing skills.

it does NOT matter how much you have studied! i have studied WAY more than you, i am a physicist who has studied classical mechanics, analytical dynamics, thermodynamics, quantum thermodynamics, quantum theory, quantum mechanics, modern physics, nuclear physics, particle physics, electromagnetism, electrodynamics, fluid mechanics, special relativity, experiments on most of these and the math that is necessary to understand all of this! (algebra, calculus, partial diffs, diffs, vector calculus, tensors, diff geometry, etcetcetc) and i entered my university with 3rd best grade and a scholarship! but i will not say "oh i am a good scientist! you are wrong because i am a good scientist". that is called "appeal to authority" and it is a logical fallacy. it is just plain wrong.

if you're such a great engineer, explain!

i will not hear this crap from a guy who can't even explain his experiment properly!

it does NOT matter what you say you know IT ONLY MATTERS WHAT YOU EXPLAIN!

EXPLAIN IT! END OF STORY.

so have you studied the tetherball ever during so many classes?

you seem to not have studied it for what you said before, no wonder it leads to a contradiction between energy and momentm conservation

i proved it matematically, now we could discuss weather the concept behind the math is wrong but you just keep saying im an ignorant thats why i said i rather not to discuss it with you, you dont want to be contrucive just get a laugh out of me

did you ever study something by questionin something is wrong? thats my method

you have not studied the tools necessary to question conservation of momentum/energy

explain your experiment clearly and simply, otherwise you are just. plain. wrong.

Quote from lerts :

i proved it matematically

A list of your equations without explaination or analysis is not a proof.

tis a theory.

i analized rotational and translation speed of a double tetherball or a double yoyo spinning in empy space as the radius grows, i took rotational speed as translational around the cog of the eccentric weights that shape the yoyo or tether, i supposed 1 kg each weight, 1 m from the center of the yoyo A, 2 m/s rot speed and 2 m/s trans speed, initial radius or distance center a from center b 1 m, objective: to find out rot and trans speed when radius is 2 m:

v1 rotational=2m/s

v1 translational=2m/S

radius1b=1m

radius 1a=1m

i found out initial enegy and momentum:

kin energy1=1/2*m*(vrot+vtrans)^2=1/2*2*(2+2)^2=16

Mrot1=2kg*2m/s*1m r1a=4

Mtrans1=2kg*2m/s*1m r1b=4

M1=4+4=8

i found out momentum and energy finals with vrot and vtrans as incognitae and equal each with initia momentum and energy since i supposed both get conserved

kin enrgy2=2kg/2(vrot2+vtrans2)^2=16

M2=Mrot2+Mtrans2=2kg*vrot2*1r2a+2kg*vtrans2*2r2b=2 *vrot2+4*vtrans2=8

i solve the equation system to find out rot speed and trans speed:

(x+y)^2=16
2x+4y=8

solution=
x=12
y=-4

it gives an imposible solution

notice the double tether or yoyo can be considered frictionless with no problem

satellites slow down their spin by extending weights connected with a cable to the satelite, as the radius of the weights increase the satelite slows down

notice this is not frictionless and when applying energy conservation has to be taken into accounts that the cable as it grows its radius 2 brakes are acting on the cable causing huge friction, you could put a generator on these brakes, and exactly the same energy that the satelite-weights system loses would be gained by the brakes generators

i hope you see clearly that contrary to this case the double yoyo can be consider frictionless

We need a science forum for this, because this is over my head. I never did complete advance math on school, nor physics, so got no clue about this

Quote from lerts :

it gives an imposible solution

which simply means that your analysis is wrong, because we can actually go and use a tetherball and it does not , in fact, behave "impossibly".

set aside that you can't even solve a simple 2 variable system.

Quote from The Very End :

We need a science forum for this, because this is over my head. I never did complete advance math on school, nor physics, so got no clue about this

haven't you even got the knowledge to test if his solution to the system is correct?

does (x+y)^2 = 16 if x=12 and y=-4?

what "science" and "advance math" are you talking about? this is elementary school arithmetic.

now you tried copy pasting from some software... way to go nub.

(Edit: he deleted the message)

sol1: x=4 Y=0

sol2 : x=-12 y=8

they both solve:
(x+y)^2=16 2x+4y=8

doesnt make any diffrence in my argument