Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
>>>>>
>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
>>>
>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
>> doesn't care what your definition is.
>
> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration. You
> and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an object
> whirl around on the end of a string. I disagree. So I asked you and Odd
> how. Now you chicken shit sack of shit refuse to answer and tried to
> change the discussion to the definition of centripetal acceleration.
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/10/2021 8:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really tried.
>>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the explanation that
>>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and he’d just crap his
>>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a string.
>>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved. Sad.
>>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
>>>>
>>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration.
>>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
>>>
>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
>>>
>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
>
> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.

Of course I do. Here’s another quote from Resnick and Halliday, a book that
you claimed at one point to have read and understood:

“In Section 3-6 we saw that acceleration arises from a change in velocity.
In the simple case of free fall the velocity changed in magnitude only, but
not in direction. For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed,
called uniform circular motion, the velocity vector changes continuously in
direction but not in magnitude….

“We therefore obtain [a = v^2/r] as the magnitude of the acceleration. The
direction of a is instantaneously along a radius inward toward the center
of the circle.

“Figure 4-6 shows the instantaneous relation between v and a at various
points of the motion. The magnitude of v is constant, but its direction
changes continuously. This gives rise to an acceleration a which is also
constant in magnitude (but not zero) but continuously changing in
direction. The velocity v is always tangent to the circle in the direction
of motion; the acceleration a is always directed radially inward. Because
of this, a is called a radial or *centripetal* acceleration. Centripetal
means ‘seeing a center.’ “

So you see, Halliday and Resnick start off by talking about motion in a
circle at constant speed and then describes the acceleration present in
this case, called centripetal acceleration, which is not zero even though
the speed is constant.

You obviously were never able to learn what was in chapter 4 of this
first-year book on physics. And it’s written as plain as day, with diagrams
and math and everything.

Now, why would anyone download a PDF book written by someone that never
learned chapter 4 material from a first-year physics book?

>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> ration On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 7:26:51 PM UTC-4, Ken Seto wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 9:20:20 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 9:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The paper in the following link described a new theory of gravity called DTG.
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
>>>>>>>>>> DTG describes gravity between the earth and the moon as a composite
>>>>>>>>>> force as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. It is an attractive EM force derived from the fact that the earth and
>>>>>>>>>> the moon are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the
>>>>>>>>>> universe expands.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure
>>>>>>>>>> of the E Matrix as the earth and the moon are expanding in the same
>>>>>>>>>> direction in the E-Matrix. This gives rise to a repulsive effect called
>>>>>>>>>> the CRE force.between the earth and the moon.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined result of the
>>>>>>>>>> above opposing forces. That’s why gravity is so weak compared to the
>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic force and the nuclear forces.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 4. It turns out that ts.he combination of the attractive EM force in
>>>>>>>>>> combination with the repulsive CRE force are essential for the moon to
>>>>>>>>>> maintain a stable orbit around the earth for billions of years.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really tried.
>>>>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the explanation that
>>>>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and he’d just crap his
>>>>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a string.
>>>>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved. Sad.
>>>>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration.
>>>>> So you’re saying Resnick and Halliday are wrong?
>>>>> They say there is. I quoted it for you right out of their book.
>>>>
>>>> So you failed to understand what Resnick and Haljday are saying.....
>>> LOL. What I quoted seems to be very straightforward to me.
>>> What do you think their words mean?
>> Moron, then explain how only centripetal acceleration can maintain
>> constant speed. Gee you are so fucking >stupid.
> Better yet, explain how just the centripetal acceleration of the string
> can make the object whirling around in circles.

But this is obvious, and it’s covered in a basic first-year book in
physics. It’s a pity you never learned this.

The string’s tension has two vector components, one along the radius and
one along the tangent, the two components being in perpendicular
directions. The component along the radius provides the centripetal
acceleration. The tangential component opposes and cancels the air
resistance acting on the object being whirled in a circle.

>>>> par for the course.
>>>>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So if you’re wondering if it’s worthwhile to click on a free link to
>>>>>>>>> something written by someone who can’t follow high school physics, don’t
>>>>>>>>> bother.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 9:20:20 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 9:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The paper in the following link described a new theory of gravity called DTG.
>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
>>>>>>>>> DTG describes gravity between the earth and the moon as a composite
>>>>>>>>> force as follows:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. It is an attractive EM force derived from the fact that the earth and
>>>>>>>>> the moon are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the
>>>>>>>>> universe expands.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure
>>>>>>>>> of the E Matrix as the earth and the moon are expanding in the same
>>>>>>>>> direction in the E-Matrix. This gives rise to a repulsive effect called
>>>>>>>>> the CRE force.between the earth and the moon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined result of the
>>>>>>>>> above opposing forces. That’s why gravity is so weak compared to the
>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic force and the nuclear forces.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 4. It turns out that ts.he combination of the attractive EM force in
>>>>>>>>> combination with the repulsive CRE force are essential for the moon to
>>>>>>>>> maintain a stable orbit around the earth for billions of years.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really tried.
>>>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the explanation that
>>>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and he’d just crap his
>>>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a string.
>>>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved. Sad.
>>>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration.
>>>> So you’re saying Resnick and Halliday are wrong?
>>>> They say there is. I quoted it for you right out of their book.
>>>
>>> So you failed to understand what Resnick and Haljday are saying.....
>> LOL. What I quoted seems to be very straightforward to me.
>> What do you think their words mean?
>
> Moron, then explain how only centripetal acceleration can maintain
> constant speed. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

Here’s another quote from Resnick and Halliday, a book that you claimed at
one point to have read and understood:

“In Section 3-6 we saw that acceleration arises from a change in velocity.
In the simple case of free fall the velocity changed in magnitude only, but
not in direction. For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed,
called uniform circular motion, the velocity vector changes continuously in
direction but not in magnitude….

“We therefore obtain [a = v^2/r] as the magnitude of the acceleration. The
direction of a is instantaneously along a radius inward toward the center
of the circle.

“Figure 4-6 shows the instantaneous relation between v and a at various
points of the motion. The magnitude of v is constant, but its direction
changes continuously. This gives rise to an acceleration a which is also
constant in magnitude (but not zero) but continuously changing in
direction. The velocity v is always tangent to the circle in the direction
of motion; the acceleration a is always directed radially inward. Because
of this, a is called a radial or *centripetal* acceleration. Centripetal
means ‘seeing a center.’ “

So you see, Halliday and Resnick start off by talking about motion in a
circle at constant speed and then describes the acceleration present in
this case, called centripetal acceleration, which is not zero even though
the speed is constant.

You obviously were never able to learn what was in chapter 4 of this
first-year book on physics. And it’s written as plain as day, with diagrams
and math and everything. And you call other people stupid, because YOU
can’t learn first-year physics?

Now, why would anyone download a PDF book written by someone that never
learned chapter 4 material from a first-year physics book?

>>> par for the course.
>>>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So if you’re wondering if it’s worthwhile to click on a free link to
>>>>>>>> something written by someone who can’t follow high school physics, don’t
>>>>>>>> bother.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
>>>>>>
>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
>>>>
>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
>>
>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration. You
>> and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an object
>> whirl around on the end of a string. I disagree. So I asked you and Odd
>> how. Now you chicken shit sack of shit refuse to answer and tried to
>> change the discussion to the definition of centripetal acceleration.
>>

But this is discussed in chapter 4 and 6 in Resnick and Halliday, a book
you claimed to have read and understood. Why do you need it explained to
you here when you can just read that? I even quoted material from the book
to you. Can’t you even read the material I quoted and understand it? Heck,
Example 3 from Chapter 6 *is* the example of a ball whirled in a circle at
the end of a string. It’s discussed there in detail, with diagrams and math
and everything.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto wrote:

>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
>
> So moron, explain how only centripetal acceleration can maintain
> constant speed. Gee you are so fucking stupid

still incomplete. A theory of everything *HAS_TO* account for faster than
light travel without causality violation. There is no shortcut around the
corner. Who's your daddy? Biden is not my president. To know more, read
this. The *Nuremberg_2.0* is coming. Expect executions by hanging etc,
etc and etc.

ANTHONY FAUCI - WORLDS GREATEST CRIMINAL - HAS SPENT $191 *BILLION* OF
TAX PAYERS MONEY IN WEAPONIZING THE VIRUS!
https://www.brighteon.com/42959927-8efa-4c67-b845-61d985281769

(Dr. David E. Martin; Dr. Reiner Fuellmich ( *Volkswagen_scandal* ) Corona
Committee [Complete Bombshell Interview]
https://www.bitchute.com/video/4FdvU43qOdfD/

Dr. Robert Malone ( *inventor* of mRNA tech) interviewed by Dr. Reiner
Fuellmich _ German Corona Investigative
https://www.bitchute.com/video/YyhEjNv2lFjz/

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Interviews Whitney Webb _ Berlin Corona
Investigative Committee https://www.bitchute.com/video/YjacytwpLUFo

kak da, spasiba harasho.

On 7/12/2021 9:39 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> And you call other people stupid, because YOU
> can’t learn first-year physics?

That's typical of Stupid Ken. Ken calls me and my kid stupid because
Ken cannot calculate (-6)/(-2), even after 8 years. Classic
psychological projection.

On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
>>>>>
>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
>>>
>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
>> doesn't care what your definition is.
>
> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration. You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an object whirl around on the end of a string.

With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.

> I disagree.

Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.

> So I asked you and Odd how.

Odd has referred you to the relevant portion of H&R MANY MANY times so
far, which even has the ball-on-a-string as an example!

> Now you chicken shit sack of shit refuse to answer and tried to change the discussion to the definition of centripetal acceleration.

YOU were the one who brought in the definition of centripetal
acceleration in question! Look at what you wrote!

>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.

On Monday, 12 July 2021 at 19:36:16 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
> >>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
> >>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
> >>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
> >>>>>
> >>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
> >>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
> >>>
> >>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
> >> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
> >> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
> >> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
> >> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
> >> doesn't care what your definition is.
> >
> > Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration. You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an object whirl around on the end of a string.
> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct..
>
> > I disagree.
>
> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
> many times before, Stupid Ken.

Poor idiot Einstein has shown him the way.

> And with your math abilities limited to

Speaking of math, it's always good to remind your bunch of
idiots had to assume its oldest part false, as it didn't want
to fit the madness of your idiot guru.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 7/12/2021 9:39 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> And you call other people stupid, because YOU
>> can’t learn first-year physics?
>
> That's typical of Stupid Ken. Ken calls me and my kid stupid because
> Ken cannot calculate (-6)/(-2), even after 8 years. Classic
> psychological projection.
>
>

Ken has been told SO many times that he’s a whackjob that he simply
deflects it back: “No, YOU’RE the whackjob.”

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, 12 July 2021 at 21:03:14 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> > On 7/12/2021 9:39 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >
> >> And you call other people stupid, because YOU
> >> can’t learn first-year physics?
> >
> > That's typical of Stupid Ken. Ken calls me and my kid stupid because
> > Ken cannot calculate (-6)/(-2), even after 8 years. Classic
> > psychological projection.
> >
> >
> Ken has been told SO many times that he’s a whackjob

:)
You, of course, were never. Or at least you don't remember.

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>> On 7/12/2021 9:39 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>> And you call other people stupid, because YOU
>>> can’t learn first-year physics?
>>
>> That's typical of Stupid Ken. Ken calls me and my kid stupid because
>> Ken cannot calculate (-6)/(-2), even after 8 years. Classic
>> psychological projection.
>>
>>
>
> Ken has been told SO many times that he’s a whackjob that he simply
> deflects it back: “No, YOU’RE the whackjob.”
>

Of course, he’s now mulling over the small problem that a first-year
textbook explains quite clearly how it is that a single, unbalanced
centripetal force can produce stable circular motion like the moon around
the earth for millions of years, without any motion in the direction of the
acceleration. This is something that Ken can’t quite get his head around,
but there it is in black-and-white.

There are a few options for him, consistent with his style:

1. He can state that physics textbooks are all wrong because they “don’t
realize” the alternate facts that Ken claims are true.

2. He can wait two days until this entire conversation disappears from his
memory, which isn’t as good as it used to be, and then he can restart the
whole pointless argument from scratch.

3. He can say that any physics explanation that he does not understand is a
conspiracy to keep the common man oppressed and quiet, even if tens of
thousands of first-year students have no difficultly learning it.

4. He can say that he has an alternate explanation of circular motion that
requires balanced inward and outward forces, and because he has one, it
deserves attention, regardless how simple the current one is.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
> >>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
> >>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
> >>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
> >>>>>
> >>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
> >>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
> >>>
> >>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
> >> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
> >> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
> >> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
> >> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
> >> doesn't care what your definition is.
> >
> > Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration. You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an object whirl around on the end of a string.
> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct..
>
> > I disagree.
>
> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
> > So I asked you and Odd how.

So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string need not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle? No wonder you can’t solve (-6/-2).

> Odd has referred you to the relevant portion of H&R MANY MANY times so
> far, which even has the ball-on-a-string as an example!
> > Now you chicken shit sack of shit refuse to answer and tried to change the discussion to the definition of centripetal acceleration.
> YOU were the one who brought in the definition of centripetal
> acceleration in question! Look at what you wrote!
> >>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
>>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
>>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
>>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
>>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
>>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
>>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
>>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
>>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
>>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
>>>
>>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration.
>>> You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an
>>> object whirl around on the end of a string.
>> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
>>
>>> I disagree.
>>
>> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
>> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
>> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
>> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
>>> So I asked you and Odd how.
>
> So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string need
> not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?

I just explained this to you. If there is no air friction on the object,
no, your fingers do not need to go around in a circle for the object to be
in uniform circular motion. Please notice there is no air friction on the
moon going around the earth, and there is no air friction for an electron
orbiting in a cyclotron at constant speed.

The only reason your fingers go around in a circle for a rock whirled in
air is because the tension of the string has to have two perpendicular
components. One of the perpendicular components provides the unbalanced
centripetal force. Other other perpendicular force component opposes and
cancels the force of air friction. Note that perpendicular components of a
force cannot cancel each other ever; this is a vector property. This is
explained in Resnick and Halliday as well, if you had bothered to read it.

Do I need to quote Resnick and Halliday for you on this point as well? Or
do you think you can open the book and read it? If not, why not?

> No wonder you can’t solve (-6/-2).
>
>> Odd has referred you to the relevant portion of H&R MANY MANY times so
>> far, which even has the ball-on-a-string as an example!
>>> Now you chicken shit sack of shit refuse to answer and tried to change
>>> the discussion to the definition of centripetal acceleration.
>> YOU were the one who brought in the definition of centripetal
>> acceleration in question! Look at what you wrote!
>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 7/12/2021 4:29 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
>>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
>>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
>>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
>>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
>>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
>>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
>>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
>>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
>>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
>>>
>>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration. You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an object whirl around on the end of a string.
>> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
>>
>>> I disagree.
>>
>> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
>> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
>> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
>> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
>>> So I asked you and Odd how.
>
> So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string need not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?

In an ideal situation (no air resistance, no "bearing" friction of the
string on the finger): No, the finger doesn't need to move. In the real
world (air resistance, friction of string and finger, earth's gravity
pulling everything down): The fingers need to move to counteract the
friction.

Does a feather fall at the same rate as a lead weight? Explain your answer.

> No wonder you can’t solve (-6/-2).

You know, Stupid Ken, someone needs to edit the wikipedia article on
Psychological Projection and add your photograph to it as an example.

Better yet, you should get a job as poster boy for Psychological
Projection and you can waste your income from that printing more of your
books. They'll come in handy if there's another toilet paper shortage.

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:10:20 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
> >>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
> >>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
> >>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
> >>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
> >>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
> >>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
> >>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
> >>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
> >>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
> >>>
> >>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration.
> >>> You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an
> >>> object whirl around on the end of a string.
> >> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
> >>
> >>> I disagree.
> >>
> >> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
> >> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
> >> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
> >> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
> >>> So I asked you and Odd how.
> >
> > So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string need
> > not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?
> I just explained this to you. If there is no air friction on the object,
> no, your fingers do not need to go around in a circle for the object to be
> in uniform circular motion. Please notice there is no air friction on the
> moon going around the earth, and there is no air friction for an electron
> orbiting in a cyclotron at constant speed.
>
> The only reason your fingers go around in a circle for a rock whirled in
> air is because the tension of the string has to have two perpendicular
> components.
..
One of the component is due to the tangential acceleration of the object and the other is due to the centripetal acceleration of the string imparted on the object.

>One of the perpendicular components provides the unbalanced
> centripetal force. Other other perpendicular force component opposes and
> cancels the force of air friction. Note that perpendicular components of a
> force cannot cancel each other ever; this is a vector property. This is
> explained in Resnick and Halliday as well, if you had bothered to read it..
>
> Do I need to quote Resnick and Halliday for you on this point as well? Or
> do you think you can open the book and read it? If not, why not?
> > No wonder you can’t solve (-6/-2).
> >
> >> Odd has referred you to the relevant portion of H&R MANY MANY times so
> >> far, which even has the ball-on-a-string as an example!
> >>> Now you chicken shit sack of shit refuse to answer and tried to change
> >>> the discussion to the definition of centripetal acceleration.
> >> YOU were the one who brought in the definition of centripetal
> >> acceleration in question! Look at what you wrote!
> >>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:48:53 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 7/12/2021 4:29 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
> >>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
> >>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
> >>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
> >>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
> >>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
> >>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
> >>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
> >>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
> >>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
> >>>
> >>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration. You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an object whirl around on the end of a string.
> >> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
> >>
> >>> I disagree.
> >>
> >> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
> >> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
> >> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
> >> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
> >>> So I asked you and Odd how.
> >
> > So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string need not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?
> In an ideal situation (no air resistance, no "bearing" friction of the
> string on the finger): No, the finger doesn’t need to move.
Idiot no air resistance and no friction the fingers still have to move in circles to make the object go around in circles. gee you are stupid.

>In the real and no friction
> world (air resistance, friction of string and finger, earth's gravity
> pulling everything down): The fingers need to move to counteract the
> friction.
>
> Does a feather fall at the same rate as a lead weight? Explain your answer.
> > No wonder you can’t solve (-6/-2).
> You know, Stupid Ken, someone needs to edit the wikipedia article on
> Psychological Projection and add your photograph to it as an example.
>
> Better yet, you should get a job as poster boy for Psychological
> Projection and you can waste your income from that printing more of your
> books. They'll come in handy if there's another toilet paper shortage.

Ken Seto wrote:

>> In an ideal situation (no air resistance, no "bearing" friction of the
>> string on the finger): No, the finger doesn’t need to move.
> Idiot no air resistance and no friction the fingers still have to move
> in circles to make the object go around in circles. gee you are stupid.

fraudci and co *owns* you already, you stupid sheeple. What is been said
from the beginning of the fake "corona", one and a ½ years ago.

Dr. Chinda Brandolino - 'If DNA is Genetically Altered, it is Patented'
https://www.brighteon.com/4a062fd7-b2ac-46bf-a514-b978b49a3276

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:10:20 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
>>>>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
>>>>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
>>>>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
>>>>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
>>>>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
>>>>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
>>>>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
>>>>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration.
>>>>> You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an
>>>>> object whirl around on the end of a string.
>>>> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
>>>>
>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>
>>>> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
>>>> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
>>>> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
>>>> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
>>>>> So I asked you and Odd how.
>>>
>>> So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string need
>>> not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?
>> I just explained this to you. If there is no air friction on the object,
>> no, your fingers do not need to go around in a circle for the object to be
>> in uniform circular motion. Please notice there is no air friction on the
>> moon going around the earth, and there is no air friction for an electron
>> orbiting in a cyclotron at constant speed.
>>
>> The only reason your fingers go around in a circle for a rock whirled in
>> air is because the tension of the string has to have two perpendicular
>> components.
> .
> One of the component is due to the tangential acceleration of the object
> and the other is due to the centripetal acceleration of the string imparted on the object.

Nope. Tangential acceleration in the same direction as tangential velocity
would change the magnitude of that velocity, which would mean the speed
changes. But this is uniform circular motion, which is motion at constant
speed. Constant speed means no tangential acceleration.

But as quoted to you, uniform circular motion also involves a change in
direction of the tangential velocity, which is an acceleration pointed
toward the center of the circle. Here there is nonzero acceleration even
though the speed is constant because the acceleration is perpendicular to
the velocity.

I quoted you some relevant passages from a first year textbook. What about
those passages do you not understand?

>
>> One of the perpendicular components provides the unbalanced
>> centripetal force. Other other perpendicular force component opposes and
>> cancels the force of air friction. Note that perpendicular components of a
>> force cannot cancel each other ever; this is a vector property. This is
>> explained in Resnick and Halliday as well, if you had bothered to read it.
>>
>> Do I need to quote Resnick and Halliday for you on this point as well? Or
>> do you think you can open the book and read it? If not, why not?
>>> No wonder you can’t solve (-6/-2).
>>>
>>>> Odd has referred you to the relevant portion of H&R MANY MANY times so
>>>> far, which even has the ball-on-a-string as an example!
>>>>> Now you chicken shit sack of shit refuse to answer and tried to change
>>>>> the discussion to the definition of centripetal acceleration.
>>>> YOU were the one who brought in the definition of centripetal
>>>> acceleration in question! Look at what you wrote!
>>>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:48:53 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 7/12/2021 4:29 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
>>>>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
>>>>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
>>>>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
>>>>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
>>>>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
>>>>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
>>>>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
>>>>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration.
>>>>> You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an
>>>>> object whirl around on the end of a string.
>>>> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
>>>>
>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>
>>>> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
>>>> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
>>>> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
>>>> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
>>>>> So I asked you and Odd how.
>>>
>>> So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string
>>> need not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?
>> In an ideal situation (no air resistance, no "bearing" friction of the
>> string on the finger): No, the finger doesn’t need to move.
> Idiot no air resistance and no friction the fingers still have to move in
> circles to make the object go around in circles. gee you are stupid.

No, that’s not correct. Resnick and Halliday specifically talk about this
in chapter 6. Are you saying they are wrong that with no friction and air
resistance, the pivot at the other end of the string does not move?

>
>> In the real and no friction
>> world (air resistance, friction of string and finger, earth's gravity
>> pulling everything down): The fingers need to move to counteract the
>> friction.
>>
>> Does a feather fall at the same rate as a lead weight? Explain your answer.
>>> No wonder you can’t solve (-6/-2).
>> You know, Stupid Ken, someone needs to edit the wikipedia article on
>> Psychological Projection and add your photograph to it as an example.
>>
>> Better yet, you should get a job as poster boy for Psychological
>> Projection and you can waste your income from that printing more of your
>> books. They'll come in handy if there's another toilet paper shortage.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 7/13/2021 3:49 PM, Scott Landini wrote:

>
> fraudci and co *owns* you already, you stupid sheeple. What is been said
> from the beginning of the fake "corona", one and a ½ years ago.

Go away, nymshifter. Take your ФСБ/ГРУ disinformation elsewhere, or at
least stick to the threads you've already successfully hijacked.

On 7/13/2021 3:26 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:48:53 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 7/12/2021 4:29 PM, Ken Seto wrote:

>>> So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string need not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?

>> In an ideal situation (no air resistance, no "bearing" friction of the
>> string on the finger): No, the finger doesn’t need to move.

> Idiot no air resistance and no friction the fingers still have to move in circles to make the object go around in circles. gee you are stupid.

Evidence of that? Oh that's right, you just pulled it fresh out of your
butt. That's not how science works, however. No wonder you are called
Stupid Ken.

On 7/13/2021 3:20 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:10:20 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
>>>>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
>>>>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
>>>>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
>>>>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
>>>>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
>>>>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
>>>>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
>>>>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration.
>>>>> You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an
>>>>> object whirl around on the end of a string.
>>>> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
>>>>
>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>
>>>> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
>>>> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
>>>> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
>>>> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
>>>>> So I asked you and Odd how.
>>>
>>> So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string need
>>> not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?

>> I just explained this to you. If there is no air friction on the object,
>> no, your fingers do not need to go around in a circle for the object to be
>> in uniform circular motion. Please notice there is no air friction on the
>> moon going around the earth, and there is no air friction for an electron
>> orbiting in a cyclotron at constant speed.
>>
>> The only reason your fingers go around in a circle for a rock whirled in
>> air is because the tension of the string has to have two perpendicular
>> components.
> .
> One of the component is due to the tangential acceleration of the object and the other is due to the centripetal acceleration of the string imparted on the object.

Stupid Ken! We are discussing circular motion at a constant speed. That
means the tangential velocity is constant, and if the tangential
velocity is constant, then plainly the tangential acceleration is ZERO.

The centripetal acceleration is a constant magnitude but constantly
changing direction, and is produced by the string. However the
centripetal acceleration is always at a right angle to the ball's motion
so it cannot (and does not) provide tangential acceleration.

Also a string cannot transfer a force in any direction except directly
along its length (and even then only tension) so it CANNOT provide any
tangential acceleration. A string cannot pull/push at right angles to
itself!

[Unfortunately, unlike speed and velocity, there is no magnitude-only
and magnitude+direction word pair in English for acceleration. The word
acceleration is used in both cases]

Odd gave you direct references in H&R many times. Why do you refuse to
even look at them? Especially since they use the whirling
ball-and-string as an example!

Michael Moroney wrote:

> On 7/13/2021 3:49 PM, Scott Landini wrote:
>
>
>> fraudci and co *owns* you already, you stupid sheeple. What is been
>> said from the beginning of the fake "corona", one and a ½ years ago.
>
> Go away, nymshifter. Take your ФСБ/ГРУ disinformation elsewhere, or at
> least stick to the threads you've already successfully hijacked.

your friend nymshifter is consistent, proved by your impertinence
deleting the given peer-reviewed strong references.

Can you produce a PhD in something, or "almost a bachelor" like the most
around here?

Dr. Chinda Brandolino - 'If DNA is Genetically Altered, it is Patented'
https://www.brighteon.com/4a062fd7-b2ac-46bf-a514-b978b49a3276

A VERY PRECISE EXPLANATION OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THE BODY AFTER THE
VACCINATION - PROF. S. BHAKDI
https://www.bitchute.com/video/FB2XnsuyYDrS/
(peer-reviewed papers)

Politician Calls Out Massive Disinformation Campaign By Corrupt
Australian Government! (July 2021) (more peer-reviewed papers)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/WBBWBj5uJYDU/

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:10:20 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
> >>>>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
> >>>>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
> >>>>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
> >>>>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
> >>>>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
> >>>>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
> >>>>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
> >>>>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
> >>>>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration.
> >>>>> You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an
> >>>>> object whirl around on the end of a string.
> >>>> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I disagree.
> >>>>
> >>>> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
> >>>> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
> >>>> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
> >>>> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
> >>>>> So I asked you and Odd how.
> >>>
> >>> So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string need
> >>> not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?
> >> I just explained this to you. If there is no air friction on the object,
> >> no, your fingers do not need to go around in a circle for the object to be
> >> in uniform circular motion. Please notice there is no air friction on the
> >> moon going around the earth, and there is no air friction for an electron
> >> orbiting in a cyclotron at constant speed.
> >>
> >> The only reason your fingers go around in a circle for a rock whirled in
> >> air is because the tension of the string has to have two perpendicular
> >> components.
> > .
> > One of the component is due to the tangential acceleration of the object
> > and the other is due to the centripetal acceleration of the string imparted on the object.
> Nope. Tangential acceleration in the same direction as tangential velocity
> would change the magnitude of that velocity, which would mean the speed
> changes. But this is uniform circular motion, which is motion at constant
> speed. Constant speed means no tangential acceleration.

Gee there is no constant speed for an object in circular motion......it is constantly changing directions.
Between the earth and the moon, the centripetal acceleration and the centrifugal acceleration work in tandem to give orbiting motion of the moon.
>
> But as quoted to you, uniform circular motion also involves a change in
> direction of the tangential velocity, which is an acceleration pointed
> toward the center of the circle. Here there is nonzero acceleration even
> though the speed is constant because the acceleration is perpendicular to
> the velocity.

>
> I quoted you some relevant passages from a first year textbook. What about
> those passages do you not understand?
> >
> >> One of the perpendicular components provides the unbalanced
> >> centripetal force. Other other perpendicular force component opposes and
> >> cancels the force of air friction. Note that perpendicular components of a
> >> force cannot cancel each other ever; this is a vector property. This is
> >> explained in Resnick and Halliday as well, if you had bothered to read it.
> >>
> >> Do I need to quote Resnick and Halliday for you on this point as well? Or
> >> do you think you can open the book and read it? If not, why not?
> >>> No wonder you can’t solve (-6/-2).
> >>>
> >>>> Odd has referred you to the relevant portion of H&R MANY MANY times so
> >>>> far, which even has the ball-on-a-string as an example!
> >>>>> Now you chicken shit sack of shit refuse to answer and tried to change
> >>>>> the discussion to the definition of centripetal acceleration.
> >>>> YOU were the one who brought in the definition of centripetal
> >>>> acceleration in question! Look at what you wrote!
> >>>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables