kallend 2,067 #126 January 28, 2010 QuoteLets also remember that according to current physics a bumble bee cant fly and humans aren't capable of lift as much as we do. WRONG. "Current physics" has no trouble explaining the flight of insects. People practising physics without qualifications in physics are the ones that can't explain it. Look in the mirror and you'll see one. (By the way, I built and flew my first R/C plane in 1964. I've had my R/C designs published and kitted. What were you doing in 1964?)... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #127 January 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteLets also remember that according to current physics a bumble bee cant fly and humans aren't capable of lift as much as we do. WRONG. "Current physics" has no trouble explaining the flight of insects. People practising physics without qualifications in physics are the ones that can't explain it. Look in the mirror and you'll see one. (By the way, I built and flew my first R/C plane in 1964. I've had my R/C designs published and kitted. What were you doing in 1964?) policing brass off the grassy knoll. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,535 #128 January 28, 2010 QuoteI will admit I was wrong Hallelujah. Quote but I find it interesting that no one could find this flaw in my example earlier. Oh dear god... Mate, everyone found the flaw and everyone told you the flaw, it just took a long, long time for it to sink in! Please, don't blame us for your failing!Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #129 January 28, 2010 Quote...(By the way, I built and flew my first R/C plane in 1964. I've had my R/C designs published and kitted. What were you doing in 1964?) Gettin' laid.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #130 January 28, 2010 QuoteWhat time did the plane depart? Two hours late and the peanuts sucked.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #131 January 28, 2010 Quote...."Current physics" has no trouble explaining the flight of insects. It's just that finding people that can explain the physics is so hard.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #132 January 28, 2010 The only part of physics I liked was Quantum Mechanics because the probability of the prof understanding it was just as uncertain as the probability of me understanding it.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #133 January 28, 2010 I'm not a physicist, just an engineer. I can, however, say with great certainty that if the below is incorrect, I will be informed by the community, but here goes: Inertia is not a quantity used in physics. Mass is what people sometimes mean when they say "inertia". Mass (and inertia) is a body's resistance to acceleration. Classically, unless you're losing mass (by burning fuel, for example) mass is a constant regardless of the reference frame you are using. Momentum, which Ion01 was calling "inertia", depends on the reference frame, but the work needed to effect a change in momentum is the same regardless of reference frame. Your question is hard to answer simply because the terms are not being used properly by people here. Relativistically, it gets considerably more complicated. E=mc^2 means that a body's mass and energy are intertwined, such that at high speeds the masss of a body (its resistance to a change in momentum) goes up. I don't work in relativistic terms at my job, so my memory is a little rusty about this. I hope that made sense. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #134 January 28, 2010 It's more of a "momentum" issue than inertia. Conservation of momentum is calculated with the simple mass x velocity instead of mass x velocity(squared) that's used for calculating energy. Kallend brought this up a while back (very subtly and no one took it any further) Pool balls are the easiest way to visualize it. Would a pool table on an airplane work? Or in a car moving steadily down a very smooth road? Or would there be different reactions by the balls depending on which way the shot was made? Again, assuming that the movment of the reference frame (car or plane) is very steady."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
