Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Posted March 25, 2009 I ask a simple, yes or no question, and you give me word games? I gave you a time interval. Torque has no time, but it has a radius.
Sisyphus Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 So you instananeously beat your wife with a torque wrench?
Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Posted March 25, 2009 So you instananeously beat your wife with a torque wrench? That would be power you are speaking of, work/time. If I beat my wife with a torque wrench, work got done in a interval of time, that is power=work/time. Torque is always balanced (you know, the whole equal and opposite thing). In order to have a force there must be an equal and opposite force. Distance divides that force.
Sisyphus Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Whoa whoa whoa, don't start bringing in math. Math has nothing to do with reality. All I'm seeing is a failure to answer a simple yes or no question. One word is all I'm looking for, here.
insane_alien Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 /me applies a torque of 300N.m to Durations nipples for 10minutes.
Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Posted March 25, 2009 Whoa whoa whoa, don't start bringing in math. Math has nothing to do with reality. All I'm seeing is a failure to answer a simple yes or no question. One word is all I'm looking for, here. I am talking about reality. Motion occurs in a duration of time. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged/me applies a torque of 300N.m to Durations nipples for 10minutes. ouchhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Sisyphus Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 I am talking about reality. Motion occurs in a duration of time. Sorry, I don't speak your brainwashed gibberish language. You're going to have to translate that into a "yes" or a "no."
Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Posted March 25, 2009 Sorry, I don't speak your brainwashed gibberish language. You're going to have to translate that into a "yes" or a "no." No matter what time interval you look at, I never beat my wife the entire time. Go look at videos of past time periods, there is no record of me ever beating my wife. There is however a record of the Earth being closer to the sun in the past.
Sisyphus Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 No matter what time interval you look at, I never beat my wife the entire time. Go look at videos of past time periods, there is no record of me ever beating my wife. There is however a record of the Earth being closer to the sun in the past. THANK YOU. That's all I was looking for.
Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) THANK YOU. That's all I was looking for. So again, the Earth is traveling away from the sun. In the past, the Earth was inside the sun. If you want to say the Earth is still inside the sun, that's fine with me, as the sun is the solar system's core, the Earth just got further away from the sun's core. It just got further away. It just got further away. It just got further away. Edited March 25, 2009 by Duration
Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Posted March 25, 2009 But you haven't stopped beating your wife. There was no work done. There is no perpetual motion.
Sisyphus Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Now, hold on. We just had a major breakthrough, and I'm not ready to move on yet. You admitted that you still beat your wife, and we need to explore that. So, how would you describe the state of your marriage?
Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Posted March 25, 2009 Now, hold on. We just had a major breakthrough, and I'm not ready to move on yet. You admitted that you still beat your wife, and we need to explore that. So, how would you describe the state of your marriage? I never admitted to beating my wife, you assumed I started to beat her, and then asked a ridiculous question of when I stopped. I never started! There was zero work done. None, nadda, zilch!
insane_alien Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 so you beat your wife because you procrastinate?
Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Posted March 25, 2009 so you beat your wife because you procrastinate? Procrastinate has a duration, beat the wife is a motion. Motion occurs over a duration. The duration occurred, but the beating did not.
Mokele Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Procrastinate has a duration, beat the wife is a motion. Motion occurs over a duration. The duration occurred, but the beating did not. Oh, come on, that doesn't rhyme at all! There once was a man called Duration And he loved mental masturbation His claims about mass were stupid and crass and never account for rotation. See, easy!
Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) Oh, come on, that doesn't rhyme at all! There once was a man called Duration And he loved mental masturbation His claims about mass were stupid and crass and never account for rotation. See, easy! That's Motor Daddy to you. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOf course if you measure torque in a two different reference frames you will measure a different RPM in both of them... This statement bothers me. What do you mean to measure a torque in two different reference frames? Please give a simple example, such as using a teeter totter. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHere's a possibility for a test of torque. If the acceleration of gravity were to remain the same, and the Earth's mass were to remain the same, and the distance measured from a specific distance from the center of the Earth, if you hung a rock off the handle of a torque wrench, suspended in air, and the drive part of the wrench securely fastened to a immobile object, in a fashion that the torque wrench was roughly parallel to the ground, if the torque read 100 lb-ft, and seemingly stayed at 100 lb-ft, would the torque reading change as time marched on? Would the torque stay the same or get less? Edited March 25, 2009 by Duration Consecutive posts merged.
Kyrisch Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 I need help from someone that believes in my theory, and is excellent with mathematics, and can show mathematically why this is the truth. FAIL. Right here. RIGHT HERE. You use a theory to explain a set of data, not the other way around. I don't know why you guys bother with him... This thread is so ridiculous I'm suffering from Poe's Law between this guy being a troll or just that bleeding thick.
Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Posted March 25, 2009 FAIL. Right here. RIGHT HERE. You use a theory to explain a set of data, not the other way around. I don't know why you guys bother with him... This thread is so ridiculous I'm suffering from Poe's Law between this guy being a troll or just that bleeding thick. Whatever. :rolleyes: Call it what you want, I want to know if the Earth is going in or out of the Sun? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI like how Swansont noticed my idea was in compliance with the 2nd law, and I haven't seen him since.
Kyrisch Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 We have witnessed planet formation in other solar systems; we have a pretty good idea that it's something like the accretion-disc model. Unless you can point to someplace where your thing-a-ma-jig is happening, it's not a model, nor a theory. It's barely even a conjecture. It's a random imaginative guess, and that, good sir, is not science -- it's stupid.
insane_alien Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 kyrisch, stop beating on durations brain. he needs that to remember where he put the torque wrench he beats his wife with.
Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Posted March 25, 2009 We have witnessed planet formation in other solar systems; we have a pretty good idea that it's something like the accretion-disc model. Unless you can point to someplace where your thing-a-ma-jig is happening, it's not a model, nor a theory. It's barely even a conjecture. It's a random imaginative guess, and that, good sir, is not science -- it's stupid. Again, still no answer as to if we are further from the sun now than we used to be in the past. Save you garbage, buddy, and answer the question.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 It is extremely difficult to answer that question because there are so many other celestial bodies that affect Earth's orbit.
Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Posted March 25, 2009 It is extremely difficult to answer that question because there are so many other celestial bodies that affect Earth's orbit. If it was easy to measure someone would have noticed it before now.
Recommended Posts