Theoretical question

[JohnD]

Are you all barmy, or doing it for fun?

 

[Big_Spark]

Are you all barmy, or doing it for fun?

BARMY

 

[Steve]

Are you all barmy, or doing it for fun?

BARMY

Someone said earlier, its contact area is zero. This cant be true, since we have said they are touching and so there IS a contact area. Then I brought in the mass of the objects. If the circle wasn't touching a plane below it, its mass would have to be zero. The circle is resting upon the plane and therefore it must have a mass to keep it from blowing away!

 

[Softus]

Softus, as usual lately you are being a twonk.

I have no idea what you mean, except that it's probably derogatory in a non-specific way.

Eddie M is wrong and also right, it all depends on the perspective and scale involved.

Eddie M was right. I have no idea how you can possibly thing that he's also wrong, given how few words he posted on the subject, and the fact that he consistently stated the same point of view.

And here in lies the dilemna Crafty, as this is impossible. As you reduce the scale, there will come a point where a flat edge can exist, whether that be at the molecular, atomic or subatomic level is a matter of conjecture.

Utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, (utter etc.) rubbish. And you accuse people of making it up as they go along.

 

[Softus]

Are you all barmy, or doing it for fun?

I'm fun, and I'm doing it to be barmy.

 

[JohnD]

I'm fun.

We need a vote on that

 

[Big_Spark]

I have no idea what you mean, except that it's probably derogatory in a non-specific way.

Jovial urine extraction is more accurate..nothing actually personal, just like calling someone a plonker.

Eddie M was right. I have no idea how you can possibly thing that he's also wrong, given how few words he posted on the subject, and the fact that he consistently stated the same point of view.

Of course he is both right and wrong. As I said it depends on perspective. At our eyesight level we persieve a point of contact as the sphere plainly sits atop the plane, however at a atomic or subatomic level, where other forces come into play, it would not be true and Eddie is most definitly correct..that is what I meant by perspective.

And here in lies the dilemna Crafty, as this is impossible. As you reduce the scale, there will come a point where a flat edge can exist, whether that be at the molecular, atomic or subatomic level is a matter of conjecture.

Utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, (utter etc.) rubbish. And you accuse people of making it up as they go along. [/quote]

YAWN!! Learn physics and truly understand the subatomic world before you type, the only one here talking rubbish is in fact you Softus as your unwilling to accept the world arround does not necessarilly agree with your perspective.

 

[Softus]

Eddie M, I believe, was not making a point about particle physics.

The interesting point about the OP's question is the way that those people who dive into the physics of the subject are missing the obvious answer, which is one that's as much bound in philosophy as in pure mathematics.

Big_Spark, you have a history of making Big Mistakes and then having to backtrack and apologise. It is, in fact, a trend.

An endearing as your honesty undoubtedly is, and your readiness to admit error, neither attribute makes up for the fact that you're almost always wrong with your first gambit. Do you perhaps remember the phrase "full load current"? Or, more recently, your invented legislation about overtaking on the left? Hm?

You seem to let your own belief that you know a lot (hence the bragging about white papers, theses, and such like) cloud your judgment - so much so that those whom you accuse of being trolls, or of being unable to read, think, or comprehend as much as you do, are invariably those people who get it right every time you get it wrong.

 

[Big_Spark]

Well the term FULL LOAD CURRENT is electrically accurate, however it was taken out of context partly due to the way I typed my post, and secondly by the moronic argumentative attitude of a certain poster at that time. So by all means comment on it.

Well I think the legislation thing has been cleared up and yet YOU still belive the Police to be wrong..ho hum

Oh and as for bragging about white papers, thesis and so opn as you put it..now your making it up again. I may have quoted from such things, but have most certainly never bragged about them..usually they are far too boring for such behaviour!!

Regarding this thread..it was a bit of fun, banter a trifle, but it is YOU that has taken it serious to the point of insult and inuendo. This was a theoretical discussion and I doubt that any of us has the mathematical knowledge and skills to mathematically prove one way or the other which statement is the more accurate or outright true. (If someone here does have that knowledge it would be interesting to see the calculation)

Softus, leave it, it is that simple. You want to be the big cheese on this forum and the reincarnation of BAS, be my guest..I have grass to mow!!

 

[Softus]

Well the term FULL LOAD CURRENT is electrically accurate

No it isn't - it was meaningless in the context that you repeatedly used it and tried to justify using it.

Well I think the legislation thing has been cleared up and yet YOU still belive the Police to be wrong..ho hum

No - I believe that the police are right, in the text that you quoted, but that you've comprehensively misinterpreted what they've said.

Oh and as for bragging about white papers, thesis and so opn as you put it..now your making it up again. I may have quoted from such things, but have most certainly never bragged about them..usually they are far too boring for such behaviour!!

Care to deny that once more, before I show you a post on which you bragged?

Softus, leave it, it is that simple.

It is simple - if you want to leave it then just leave it, and I'll do what I want to do.

You want to be the big cheese on this forum and the reincarnation of BAS

I have no idea how you've reached that conclusion. ban-all-sheds left this forum recently, but he posts elsewhere. As for me, nothing has changed since he left.

By all means keep posting wrong and misleading information, if you wish, as I'm happy to keep pointing out where it's wrong and misleading.

 

[Big_Spark]

Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn ...Oh..I hear grass growing...

Lets see this post then...I am so so curious about what you've concocted together now..

As for Full load current...yes it is a term, yes it is accurate..but I think I have already conceeded that the manner of my use of it was not accurate..

 

[Moz]

Im sure you all went too sixth form as well ...lol...lol

 

[Big_Spark]

Im sure you all went too sixth form as well ...lol...lol

Nope, not in my case..no need..

 

[2scoops0406]

The clue is in the topic subject, it is a theoretical question, no need to postulate about particles / mass et al, simply do the maths, the answer is zero.

 

[Moz]

Big_Spark
with this fred ...
its just like I bumped into a 6 formers/swotters night out in a boozer reading this fred ...lol
all pretentious/intellectual wannabies ....all pumped up with their own self worth an dying slowly inside cos they have No personality to chat up the drunk girls in the corner ..but craving the satisfaction they can spew more inane physic theories...lol ..lol