1. Newtons first law, states that an object when viewed in an inertial reference frame, continues to move at a constant velocity unless external forces are acting upon it.

Laws of Universal Gravitation, state that any two bodies attract with force directly proportional to the product of their masses.

The Earth's ellipse orbit around the Sun, is said to be from initial inertia , following Newtons 1st law of motion.

Why is Gravity, not accounted for has an external force, in gravity, mass pulls mass, an attraction force, something that pulls, slows an object down, when trying to accelerate.

So how can the Earth maintain velocity of orbit, when there is an external force acting on Newtons 1st law?

2.

3. Trollery. Indeed.

4. Originally Posted by trollery
Newtons first law, states that an object when viewed in an inertial reference frame, continues to move at a constant velocity unless external forces are acting upon it.
By virtue of the fact that it's in orbit the Earth is accelerating (changing velocity because its direction of motion changes).
(Newton's law states, as you said, velocity: that's direction and speed a change in either [or both] therefore results from an applied force).
Gravity is the force that causes that acceleration.

5. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by trollery
Newtons first law, states that an object when viewed in an inertial reference frame, continues to move at a constant velocity unless external forces are acting upon it.
By virtue of the fact that it's in orbit the Earth is accelerating (changing velocity because its direction of motion changes).
(Newton's law states, as you said, velocity: that's direction and speed a change in either [or both] therefore results from an applied force).
Gravity is the force that causes that acceleration.
Thank you for your answer, I thought the initial inertia of orbit was created when the big bang happened? and gravity just held the orbital radius, and the Earth follows Newtons first Law.

Your answer of gravity makes the acceleration is not correct I believe, unless we are not understanding each other.

6. Told you, Duck!

7. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Your answer of gravity makes the acceleration is not correct I believe
Why do you not believe this?
If there were no gravity then the Earth would continue in a straight line: no orbit.
Since gravity is what causes the orbit (circular motion around the Sun) then that's what causes the acceleration (constantly changing direction of motion).

The initial velocity came from conservation of angular momentum: but, like I said, no Sun = no gravity = no acceleration: straight line.

8. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Your answer of gravity makes the acceleration is not correct I believe
Why do you not believe this?
If there were no gravity then the Earth would continue in a straight line: no orbit.
Since gravity is what causes the orbit (circular motion around the Sun) then that's what causes the acceleration (constantly changing direction of motion).

The initial velocity came from conservation of angular momentum: but, like I said, no Sun = no gravity = no acceleration: straight line.
The angular momentum was created when the universe was formed, the Earth wants to go straight , but Gravity stops that and the result is angular momentum, but gravity is not what causes momentum, gravity only causes angular momentum, you can look it up if you need to, so I ask you again,

Initial angular momentum was caused by the big bang, gravity pulls, so how can Newtons first law apply?

Newtons third Law states that any force has an equal and opposing force, what opposing and equal force is there to gravity?

9. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
gravity is not what causes momentum
I didn't say it does.

Initial angular momentum was caused by the big bang, gravity pulls, so how can Newtons first law apply?
As you yourself stated: the Earth wants to go straight.
If there were no gravity then the Earth WOULD go off in a straight line.
Gravity is what stops it doing so.
By accelerating the Earth.

Newtons third Law states that any force has an equal and opposing force, what opposing and equal force is there to gravity?
Actually the law says "action", not "force".
But it still applies: the Sun is also attracted toward the Earth (but, since the disparity in masses is so great that's virtually negligible for practical purposes).

10. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
gravity is not what causes momentum
I didn't say it does.

Initial angular momentum was caused by the big bang, gravity pulls, so how can Newtons first law apply?
As you yourself stated: the Earth wants to go straight.
If there were no gravity then the Earth WOULD go off in a straight line.
Gravity is what stops it doing so.
By accelerating the Earth.

Newtons third Law states that any force has an equal and opposing force, what opposing and equal force is there to gravity?
Actually the law says "action", not "force".
But it still applies: the Sun is also attracted toward the Earth (but, since the disparity in masses is so great that's virtually negligible for practical purposes).
''Gravity is the force that causes that acceleration.''

Gravity causes F=ma of the Earth towards the Sun and vice versus, I asked what force caused the angular momentum/the orbit around the Sun, which the answer is none, initial momentum came from the big bang according to science.

Centrifugal force keeping Earth away from the Sun.

I ask again, in gravity theory how can Newtons 1st law apply when there is acting external force, and I ask again what opposing force is equal to gravity?

11. Even on a non-Euclidean manifold, infinitesimal points are locally Euclidean. Such that the gravitational vector and inertial vector of the orbiting body are consistently orthogonal. There are no oppositions between the two vectors.

12. Originally Posted by trollery
I asked what force caused the angular momentum/the orbit around the Sun
And I told you: gravity causes the orbit.

initial momentum came from the big bang according to science.
Not in dispute.

I ask again, in gravity theory how can Newtons 1st law apply when there is acting external force
And I'll tell you again:
The Earth is moving.
Gravity is an external force acting on the Earth.
Newton says that an external force causes acceleration.
That acceleration is a change of direction. A constant change of direction = orbit around the Sun.

THAT is why it orbits as opposed to going off in a straight line.
If there were no gravity then, regardless of the Earth's speed being "caused" by the initial angular momentum, it would NOT continue in orbit.

and I ask again what opposing force is equal to gravity?
With regard to what?
I've already told that the Earth exerts gravity on the Sun.

13. [QUOTE=Dywyddyr;601410]
Originally Posted by trollery
I asked what force caused the angular momentum/the orbit around the Sun
And I told you: gravity causes the orbit.

initial momentum came from the big bang according to science.
Not in dispute.

That gravity pulls the Earth towards the sun, any energy of the orbit if it were following Newtons first law would lose velocity. Pull been an external force

and I ask again what opposing force is equal to gravity?
'With regard to what?''

With regard, that if there was no opposing and equal force to Gravity, the Earth would make surface to surface contact with the Sun.

There is no opposing ground reaction force, and If I eliminate Newtons 1st law, we are a force missing.

14. Originally Posted by trollery
That gravity pulls the Earth towards the sun, any energy of the orbit if it were following Newtons first law would lose velocity.

This is simply not true.
An external force causes a change in velocity (which could be an increase or decrease in speed or a change of direction).
That change manifests, for orbits, as a change in direction.

With regard, that if there was no opposing and equal force to Gravity, the Earth would make surface to surface contact with the Sun.
The "opposing force" is the speed that the Earth already has.
If it weren't already moving (due to rotation around the Sun) then it would fall into the Sun.

There is no opposing ground force, and If I eliminate Newtons 1st law, we are a force missing.
That's why you shouldn't eliminate Newton's laws.

Try this.

15. Originally Posted by trollery
That gravity pulls the Earth towards the sun, any energy of the orbit if it were following Newtons first law would lose velocity. Pull been an external force
The pull of gravity is at a right angle to the earth's path, so it neither speeds up nor slows down. It changes direction, and that's an acceleration. The acceleration due to gravity.
There is no opposing ground force, and If I eliminate Newtons 1st law, we are a force missing.
If you accelerate something in a straight line, what is the opposing force?

16. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by trollery
That gravity pulls the Earth towards the sun, any energy of the orbit if it were following Newtons first law would lose velocity.

This is simply not true.
An external force causes a change in velocity (which could be an increase or decrease in speed or a change of direction).
That change manifests, for orbits, as a change in direction.

With regard, that if there was no opposing and equal force to Gravity, the Earth would make surface to surface contact with the Sun.
The "opposing force" is the speed that the Earth already has.
If it weren't already moving (due to rotation around the Sun) then it would fall into the Sun.

There is no opposing ground force, and If I eliminate Newtons 1st law, we are a force missing.
That's why you shouldn't eliminate Newton's laws.

Try this.
You say this is simply not true , why? The Earth orbits the Sun, the Sun exerts a force on the Earth , Gravity, and the Earth exerts a force on the Sun, Gravity,

CoM of both bodies been attracted to each other, both forces pull, both bodies act externally on each other, Newton states, unless any acting external forces. Momentum could not be achieved this way the velocity would slow?

17. Originally Posted by trollery
You say this is simply not true , why?
I have told you why:
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
An external force causes a change in velocity (which could be an increase or decrease in speed or a change of direction).
That's what Newton's law says.
It doesn't specify "losing velocity", it's says change.

The Earth orbits the Sun, the Sun exerts a force on the Earth , Gravity, and the Earth exerts a force on the Sun, Gravity,
Yes.
And?

CoM of both bodies been attracted to each other, both forces pull, both bodies act externally on each other, Newton states, unless any acting external forces. Momentum could not be achieved this way the velocity would slow?
No.
Newton states that the velocity changes.
As previously pointed out, several times, that change is an alteration of direction.

18. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by trollery
You say this is simply not true , why?
I have told you why:
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
An external force causes a change in velocity (which could be an increase or decrease in speed or a change of direction).
That's what Newton's law says.
It doesn't specify "losing velocity", it's says change.

The Earth orbits the Sun, the Sun exerts a force on the Earth , Gravity, and the Earth exerts a force on the Sun, Gravity,
Yes.
And?

CoM of both bodies been attracted to each other, both forces pull, both bodies act externally on each other, Newton states, unless any acting external forces. Momentum could not be achieved this way the velocity would slow?
No.
Newton states that the velocity changes.
As previously pointed out, several times, that change is an alteration of direction.
And where does it state in the Newton laws, that change is an alteration of direction?
'' an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force''

That says the velocity changes, it slows down if there is an acting external force. Or even a velocity increase, but in either instant , there is external force from one and other.

So momentum would slow according to Newton.

19. Originally Posted by trollery
CoM of both bodies been attracted to each other, both forces pull, both bodies act externally on each other, Newton states, unless any acting external forces. Momentum could not be achieved this way the velocity would slow?
You are misinterpreting that particular law. The gravitational force is orthogonal to the inertial force, such that they don't oppose each other. But seeing as how the orbiting body has had a force applied to it other than inertia, it is no longer moving in a straight line. In fact, it has "covered more ground" than either vector alone could do, so it's velocity has been altered.

20. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
Originally Posted by trollery
CoM of both bodies been attracted to each other, both forces pull, both bodies act externally on each other, Newton states, unless any acting external forces. Momentum could not be achieved this way the velocity would slow?
You are misinterpreting that particular law. The gravitational force is orthogonal to the inertial force, such that they don't oppose each other. But seeing as how the orbiting body has had a force applied to it other than inertia, it is no longer moving in a straight line. In fact, it has "covered more ground" than either vector alone could do, so it's velocity has been altered.
I am not misinterpreting this law, it is what it says, can you deny that the Sun is not an external force to the Earth?

21. Can you deny the Sun induces perpendicular force that is always there?

22. Originally Posted by trollery
Originally Posted by GiantEvil
Originally Posted by trollery
CoM of both bodies been attracted to each other, both forces pull, both bodies act externally on each other, Newton states, unless any acting external forces. Momentum could not be achieved this way the velocity would slow?
You are misinterpreting that particular law. The gravitational force is orthogonal to the inertial force, such that they don't oppose each other. But seeing as how the orbiting body has had a force applied to it other than inertia, it is no longer moving in a straight line. In fact, it has "covered more ground" than either vector alone could do, so it's velocity has been altered.
I am not misinterpreting this law, it is what it says, can you deny that the Sun is not an external force to the Earth?
That's some name you got going on there. Why?

P.S. Are you just cutting and pasting a bunch of stuff off of wikipedia and elsewhere in the effort to sound smart and scientific? If I had to summarize this thread (and you) in a single word, I would use the word: banality.

23. Can you deny that the perpendicular has a net force of 0?

24. Originally Posted by trollery
I am not misinterpreting this law, it is what it says, can you deny that the Sun is not an external force to the Earth?
You ARE misinterpreting it with your claim that the "velocity would slow".
For that to happen the external force would have to be opposite to the direction of motion.
As GiantEvil pointed out, this is not the case.

25. Originally Posted by scienceofdesign
Originally Posted by trollery
Originally Posted by GiantEvil
Originally Posted by trollery
CoM of both bodies been attracted to each other, both forces pull, both bodies act externally on each other, Newton states, unless any acting external forces. Momentum could not be achieved this way the velocity would slow?
You are misinterpreting that particular law. The gravitational force is orthogonal to the inertial force, such that they don't oppose each other. But seeing as how the orbiting body has had a force applied to it other than inertia, it is no longer moving in a straight line. In fact, it has "covered more ground" than either vector alone could do, so it's velocity has been altered.
I am not misinterpreting this law, it is what it says, can you deny that the Sun is not an external force to the Earth?
That's some name you got going on there. Why?

P.S. Are you just cutting and pasting a bunch of stuff off of wikipedia and elsewhere in the effort to sound smart and scientific? If I had to summarize this thread (and you) in a single word, I would use the word: banality.

My name is not really important, it is just a name.

I am not just copying pasting, I actually know what I am talking about.

You think I have a lack of originality?

Ok, lets get to the point, Newtonian gravity + Lorenz force giving us a net force of zero............Lorentz force been the opposing force to gravity....

26. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by trollery
I am not misinterpreting this law, it is what it says, can you deny that the Sun is not an external force to the Earth?
You ARE misinterpreting it with your claim that the "velocity would slow".
For that to happen the external force would have to be opposite to the direction of motion.
As GiantEvil pointed out, this is not the case.
The perpendicular force is different to the motion, one force travelling a Y vector, why the other force is travelling x vector.

27. Originally Posted by trollery
Lorentz force been the opposing force to gravity....
(Lorentz force not required in this case - gravity and initial motion account for orbits).

The perpendicular force is different to the motion, one force travelling a Y vector, why the other force is travelling x vector.
In other words they aren't opposed.

28. Originally Posted by trollery
And where does it state in the Newton laws, that change is an alteration of direction?
Where does it state in the Newton laws[sic] that change is not an alteration of direction?

Dywyddyr has told you several times what velocity is.
Did you understand?
You do know what velocity is, yes?

Perhaps if you would describe what you think velocity is, then your error will become manifest?

29. Originally Posted by trollery
My name is not really important, it is just a name.
Tell that to Hitler and any parent dumb enough to name their kid "Adolf."

Originally Posted by trollery
I am not just copying pasting, I actually know what I am talking about.
Actually the consensus here amongst the educated, scientifically-minded members is that you don't.

(you)"That gravity pulls the Earth towards the sun, any energy of the orbit if it were following Newtons first law would lose velocity."
(the truth)"This is simply not true.An external force causes a change in velocity (which could be an increase or decrease in speed or a change of direction.That change manifests, for orbits, as a change in direction."

Originally Posted by trollery
You think I have a lack of originality?
To quote Christopher Walkens, "if the shoe fits."

30. @trollery; Have you not read all full explanations? Or are you just being obtuse, like your user name suggests?
Newtons first law contains subtleties, you need to pay attention to them.
Here is a fuller explanation;Newton's laws of motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Succinctly; In Newtons first law, change in velocity can be negative or positive.

31. Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trollery
And where does it state in the Newton laws, that change is an alteration of direction?
Where does it state in the Newton laws[sic] that change is not an alteration of direction?

Dywyddyr has told you several times what velocity is.
Did you understand?
You do know what velocity is, yes?

Perhaps if you would describe what you think velocity is, then your error will become manifest?
There is no error, the net force is equal to zero, magnetic fields repel each other, electrons repel , the force is equal to gravity .

I quote

''If a particle of charge q moves with velocity v in the presence of an electric field E and a magnetic field B, then it will experience a force. For any produced force there will be an opposite reactive force. In the case of the magnetic field, the reactive force may be obscure, but it must be accounted for.''

32. Faraday discovered electromagnetism , a small electric current could rotate a wire

33. Originally Posted by trollery
Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trollery
And where does it state in the Newton laws, that change is an alteration of direction?
Where does it state in the Newton laws[sic] that change is not an alteration of direction?

Dywyddyr has told you several times what velocity is.
Did you understand?
You do know what velocity is, yes?

Perhaps if you would describe what you think velocity is, then your error will become manifest?
There is no error, the net force is equal to zero, magnetic fields repel each other, electrons repel , the force is equal to gravity .

I quote

''If a particle of charge q moves with velocity v in the presence of an electric field E and a magnetic field B, then it will experience a force. For any produced force there will be an opposite reactive force. In the case of the magnetic field, the reactive force may be obscure, but it must be accounted for.''

Are you just being obtuse on purpose, to make some kind of point? If so....please tell us what POINT you are trying to make then? It is plenty clear where your error in logic is, as IT has been pointed out very clearly. SO pretty please and with sugar on it: why are you avoiding it?

34. There is no friction in space , little force is needed for velocity

35. Originally Posted by trollery
And where does it state in the Newton laws, that change is an alteration of direction?
.
Oh, right here, in your own quoted reference:
'' an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force''
Velocity is speed AND direction.
As I stated earlier (more than once) a change in either is a change of velocity.

That says the velocity changes, it slows down if there is an acting external force. Or even a velocity increase
But, since velocity is speed AND direction then...

So momentum would slow according to Newton.
Not true.
Momentum is mass x speed. Not mass x velocity.

There is no error
Incorrect. As shown multiple times.

the net force is equal to zero, magnetic fields repel each other, electrons repel , the force is equal to gravity
Nonsense.
This doesn't apply to planets.

36. Originally Posted by scienceofdesign
Originally Posted by trollery
Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trollery
And where does it state in the Newton laws, that change is an alteration of direction?
Where does it state in the Newton laws[sic] that change is not an alteration of direction?

Dywyddyr has told you several times what velocity is.
Did you understand?
You do know what velocity is, yes?

Perhaps if you would describe what you think velocity is, then your error will become manifest?
There is no error, the net force is equal to zero, magnetic fields repel each other, electrons repel , the force is equal to gravity .

I quote

''If a particle of charge q moves with velocity v in the presence of an electric field E and a magnetic field B, then it will experience a force. For any produced force there will be an opposite reactive force. In the case of the magnetic field, the reactive force may be obscure, but it must be accounted for.''

Are you just being obtuse on purpose, to make some kind of point? If so....please tell us what POINT you are trying to make then? It is plenty clear where your error in logic is, as IT has been pointed out very clearly. SO pretty please and with sugar on it: why are you avoiding it?
Do the maths if you require, you will see that the perpendicular force has a net force of zero, I am not been obtuse, I understand the current theory and relativity.

37. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by trollery
And where does it state in the Newton laws, that change is an alteration of direction?
.
Oh, right here, in your own quoted reference:
'' an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force''
Velocity is speed AND direction.
As I stated earlier (more than once) a change in either is a change of velocity.

That says the velocity changes, it slows down if there is an acting external force. Or even a velocity increase
But, since velocity is speed AND direction then...

So momentum would slow according to Newton.
Not true.
Momentum is mass x speed. Not mass x velocity.

There is no error
Incorrect. As shown multiple times.

the net force is equal to zero, magnetic fields repel each other, electrons repel , the force is equal to gravity
Nonsense.
This doesn't apply to planets.
This does not apply to planets, really , you are saying there is no electromagnetic fields on both the sun and the earth? are you saying electrons do not repel electrons?

38. I quote -

''Alternate titles: Coulomb interaction; Coulombic force; electric force; electrostatic forceCoulomb force, also called electrostatic force or Coulomb interaction, attraction or repulsion of particles or objects because of their electric charge.''

39. Originally Posted by trollery
Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trollery
And where does it state in the Newton laws, that change is an alteration of direction?
Where does it state in the Newton laws[sic] that change is not an alteration of direction?

Dywyddyr has told you several times what velocity is.
Did you understand?
You do know what velocity is, yes?

Perhaps if you would describe what you think velocity is, then your error will become manifest?
There is no error, the net force is equal to zero, magnetic fields repel each other, electrons repel , the force is equal to gravity .

I quote

''If a particle of charge q moves with velocity v in the presence of an electric field E and a magnetic field B, then it will experience a force. For any produced force there will be an opposite reactive force. In the case of the magnetic field, the reactive force may be obscure, but it must be accounted for.''
So - are you unable to describe what you think velocity is?
Do you not know?

40. Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trollery
Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trollery
And where does it state in the Newton laws, that change is an alteration of direction?
Where does it state in the Newton laws[sic] that change is not an alteration of direction?

Dywyddyr has told you several times what velocity is.
Did you understand?
You do know what velocity is, yes?

Perhaps if you would describe what you think velocity is, then your error will become manifest?
There is no error, the net force is equal to zero, magnetic fields repel each other, electrons repel , the force is equal to gravity .

I quote

''If a particle of charge q moves with velocity v in the presence of an electric field E and a magnetic field B, then it will experience a force. For any produced force there will be an opposite reactive force. In the case of the magnetic field, the reactive force may be obscure, but it must be accounted for.''
So - are you unable to describe what you think velocity is?
Do you not know?
Many state troopers have asked him the same thing.

41. Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trollery
Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trollery
And where does it state in the Newton laws, that change is an alteration of direction?
Where does it state in the Newton laws[sic] that change is not an alteration of direction?

Dywyddyr has told you several times what velocity is.
Did you understand?
You do know what velocity is, yes?

Perhaps if you would describe what you think velocity is, then your error will become manifest?
There is no error, the net force is equal to zero, magnetic fields repel each other, electrons repel , the force is equal to gravity .

I quote

''If a particle of charge q moves with velocity v in the presence of an electric field E and a magnetic field B, then it will experience a force. For any produced force there will be an opposite reactive force. In the case of the magnetic field, the reactive force may be obscure, but it must be accounted for.''
So - are you unable to describe what you think velocity is?
Do you not know?
speed and direction, often using vectors,

42. Originally Posted by trollery
This does not apply to planets, really , you are saying there is no electromagnetic fields on both the sun and the earth? are you saying electrons do not repel electrons?
Invoking the Lorentz force to explain orbits of planets is not necessary.
They are explained by gravity and initial momentum.
(What about the planets that don't particularly have strong magnetic fields - Venus & Mars for example? How do they stay in orbit in your "explanation"?)

I am not been obtuse, I understand the current theory and relativity.
But not, apparently, basic kinematics.

43. Originally Posted by trollery
speed and direction, often using vectors,
So, if you were travelling north at 10 kph and then travelled west at 10 kph, do you agree that that would be a change in velocity?

44. [QUOTE=Dywyddyr;601445]
Momentum is mass x speed. Not mass x velocity.

[QUOTE]
I think you got it backwards, Duck. Momentum is also a vector.

45. Mod note: thread moved to Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas.

46. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by trollery
This does not apply to planets, really , you are saying there is no electromagnetic fields on both the sun and the earth? are you saying electrons do not repel electrons?
Invoking the Lorentz force to explain orbits of planets is not necessary.
They are explained by gravity and initial momentum.
(What about the planets that don't particularly have strong magnetic fields - Venus & Mars for example? How do they stay in orbit in your "explanation"?)

I am not been obtuse, I understand the current theory and relativity.
But not, apparently, basic kinematics.
Electrostatics. Venus has a next to nothing magnetic field and is probably past its curie point of magnetism, it is a fine balance, ''couples'' at zero net force , perpendicular to its partner.

47. Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trollery
speed and direction, often using vectors,
So, if you were travelling north at 10 kph and then travelled west at 10 kph, do you agree that that would be a change in velocity?
No lol, that is a change in vector.

48. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Momentum is mass x speed. Not mass x velocity.
I think you got it backwards, Duck. Momentum is also a vector.
D'oh, yes I did.
(Blame my military tech background: we only look at speed 'cos direction is always directly toward the target )

49. Originally Posted by trollery
Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trollery
speed and direction, often using vectors,
So, if you were travelling north at 10 kph and then travelled west at 10 kph, do you agree that that would be a change in velocity?
No lol, that is a change in vector.
By definition, it's a change in velocity, velocity IS a vector.
Wiki: Velocity is the rate of change of the position of an object, equivalent to a specification of its speed and direction of motion, e.g. 60 km/h to the north.
A vector is a magnitude and a direction.

50. Originally Posted by trollery
Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trollery
speed and direction, often using vectors,
So, if you were travelling north at 10 kph and then travelled west at 10 kph, do you agree that that would be a change in velocity?
No lol, that is a change in vector.
So, the vector/direction is not part of the velocity?
When you said "speed and direction, often using vectors" you actually mean just "speed"?

51. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by trollery
Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trollery
speed and direction, often using vectors,
So, if you were travelling north at 10 kph and then travelled west at 10 kph, do you agree that that would be a change in velocity?
No lol, that is a change in vector.
By definition, it's a change in velocity, velocity IS a vector.
Wiki: Velocity is the rate of change of the position of an object, equivalent to a specification of its speed and direction of motion, e.g. 60 km/h to the north.
A vector is a magnitude and a direction.
So I am correct

the direction is linear, that does not change,

52. Originally Posted by trollery
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by trollery
Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trollery
speed and direction, often using vectors,
So, if you were travelling north at 10 kph and then travelled west at 10 kph, do you agree that that would be a change in velocity?
No lol, that is a change in vector.
By definition, it's a change in velocity, velocity IS a vector.
Wiki: Velocity is the rate of change of the position of an object, equivalent to a specification of its speed and direction of motion, e.g. 60 km/h to the north.
A vector is a magnitude and a direction.
So I am correct
You suggested that a change in vector is not a change in velocity. You were incorrect.

53. Originally Posted by trollery
So I am correct
No.

the direction is linear, that does not change,
Since there was change of direction, from North to West, that means the velocity changed.
Velocity is speed AND direction.
A change in either (I get the strange feeling I've said this before) is a change of velocity.

54. Originally Posted by shlunka
Originally Posted by trollery
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by trollery
Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trollery
speed and direction, often using vectors,
So, if you were travelling north at 10 kph and then travelled west at 10 kph, do you agree that that would be a change in velocity?
No lol, that is a change in vector.
By definition, it's a change in velocity, velocity IS a vector.
Wiki: Velocity is the rate of change of the position of an object, equivalent to a specification of its speed and direction of motion, e.g. 60 km/h to the north.
A vector is a magnitude and a direction.
So I am correct
You suggested that a change in vector is not a change in velocity. You were incorrect.
I have to say it depends on how you look at the question, I answered no, it changes vector, contradicting myself.
If you consider direction has linear, which i did, it changes neither speed or direction, define direction in reality of the universe?

55. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by trollery
So I am correct
No.

the direction is linear, that does not change,
Since there was change of direction, from North to West, that means the velocity changed.
Velocity is speed AND direction.
A change in either (I get the strange feeling I've said this before) is a change of velocity.
Up is arbitrary

56. Originally Posted by trollery
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by trollery
So I am correct
No.

the direction is linear, that does not change,
Since there was change of direction, from North to West, that means the velocity changed.
Velocity is speed AND direction.
A change in either (I get the strange feeling I've said this before) is a change of velocity.
Up is arbitrary
"Up" is not equatable with "North".

57. Originally Posted by shlunka
Originally Posted by trollery
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by trollery
So I am correct
No.

the direction is linear, that does not change,
Since there was change of direction, from North to West, that means the velocity changed.
Velocity is speed AND direction.
A change in either (I get the strange feeling I've said this before) is a change of velocity.
Up is arbitrary
"Up" is not equatable with "North".
No, North could be East for all we know.

58. Expand or contract , that is all there is.

59. Originally Posted by trollery
Originally Posted by shlunka
Originally Posted by trollery
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by trollery
So I am correct
No.

the direction is linear, that does not change,
Since there was change of direction, from North to West, that means the velocity changed.
Velocity is speed AND direction.
A change in either (I get the strange feeling I've said this before) is a change of velocity.
Up is arbitrary
"Up" is not equatable with "North".
No, North could be East for all we know.
Until latitudinal lines cease to exist, that is false. North is designated. The whole premise sounded surrealistic (A hamburger could really be a hotdog)

(The paranthetical example is greatly complicated by the ability to place two hot dogs on a single hamburger bun, and likewise place a halved hamburger on a single hotdog bun.)

60. Originally Posted by trollery
Up is arbitrary
Irrelevant.
"Up" is defined with reference to something else. Ergo a change from "up" is a change in direction.
(And that doesn't address the fact that a change in direction is a change of velocity - an acceleration).

No, North could be East for all we know.
No it couldn't, since WE define what North and East are.

61. Originally Posted by trollery
It seems that even you don't agree with you.
I think you'll find that the reason you contradict yourself is because you are wrong; your statements are contradictory: "mutually opposed or inconsistent".

Originally Posted by trollery
No, North could be East for all we know.
I take it that you've never used a compass, then.

62. Originally Posted by shlunka
Originally Posted by trollery
Originally Posted by shlunka
Originally Posted by trollery
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by trollery
So I am correct
No.

the direction is linear, that does not change,
Since there was change of direction, from North to West, that means the velocity changed.
Velocity is speed AND direction.
A change in either (I get the strange feeling I've said this before) is a change of velocity.
Up is arbitrary
"Up" is not equatable with "North".
No, North could be East for all we know.
Until latitudinal lines cease to exist, that is false. North is designated. The whole premise sounded surrealistic (A hamburger could really be a hotdog)

(The paranthetical example is greatly complicated by the ability to place two hot dogs on a single hamburger bun, and likewise place a halved hamburger on a single hotdog bun.)
North is designated, and for purpose of humanity the arbitrary of it is not an issue, but if you consider that heat does not rise, it expands, outwards, the universe starts to become more imaginable.

63. Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trollery
It seems that even you don't agree with you.
I think you'll find that the reason you contradict yourself is because you are wrong; your statements are contradictory: "mutually opposed or inconsistent".

Originally Posted by trollery
No, North could be East for all we know.
I take it that you've never used a compass, then.
Yes I have used a compass, the needle points to the stronger magnetic field, the sun does not affect a compass.

But that is not to say that north could be horizontal universally

64. Electromagnetic field lines can not cross.

65. Originally Posted by trollery
No, North could be East for all we know.
No, North could be West if Kim is to be believed.
If I were West, I'd be paranoid until I got a DNA test done.

66. Originally Posted by trollery
North is designated, and for purpose of humanity the arbitrary of it is not an issue, but if you consider that heat does not rise, it expands, outwards, the universe starts to become more imaginable.
So, you agree that north is not arbitrary?
Because, if you disagree, you will need to explain an awful lot of successful pre-GPS navigation.

67. Originally Posted by trollery
North is designated, and for purpose of humanity the arbitrary of it is not an issue
In other words: you were wrong.

but if you consider that heat does not rise, it expands, outwards, the universe starts to become more imaginable.
What?
Heat is thermal energy in the process of transfer or conversion across a boundary of one region of matter to another.
Heat doesn't "expand". (Unless you mean that something that is heated undergoes expansion, which I doubt is what you meant).

68. Originally Posted by trollery
Yes I have used a compass, the needle points to the stronger magnetic field, the sun does not affect a compass.
It points north, yes?

Originally Posted by trollery
But that is not to say that north could be horizontal universally
But it points north, yes?
And north is different to west, yes?
Or do you think they are the same direction?

69. Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trollery
North is designated, and for purpose of humanity the arbitrary of it is not an issue, but if you consider that heat does not rise, it expands, outwards, the universe starts to become more imaginable.
So, you agree that north is not arbitrary?
Because, if you disagree, you will need to explain an awful lot of successful pre-GPS navigation.
North is arbitrary when comparing to the Universal position, for humanity it has localized meaning. North can be treated as a Paradox.

70. Originally Posted by trollery
North is arbitrary when comparing to the Universal position
What's a "universal position"?

North can be treated as a Paradox.
Nonsense.

71. Originally Posted by trollery
North can be treated as a Paradox.
You think north is not a direction?

Originally Posted by trollery
Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trollery
speed and direction, often using vectors,
So, if you were travelling north at 10 kph and then travelled west at 10 kph, do you agree that that would be a change in velocity?
No lol, that is a change in vector.
So, the vector/direction is not part of the velocity?
When you said "speed and direction, often using vectors" you actually meant just "speed"?

72. I believe the OP has lost the will to engage legitimately.

73. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
I believe the OP has lost the will to engage legitimately.
I think denial inevitably does that to you; cognitive dissonance overwhelms you.

74. Originally Posted by trollery
I have to say it depends on how you look at the question
No it doesn't.

That vector being velocity.

If you consider direction has linear, which i did, it changes neither speed or direction
Except that direction did change.

define direction in reality of the universe?
Meaningless.
"Direction" is however we define it.

75. Originally Posted by trollery
Electromagnetic field lines can not cross.
Well, that's the conventional wisdom ("it would be Bad...imagine every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light"). However, subsequent research by Spengler, Venkman and Stantz showed that crossing the streams is not only possible, but sometimes both necessary and beneficial.

76. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by trollery
Electromagnetic field lines can not cross.
Well, that's the conventional wisdom ("it would be Bad...imagine every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light"). However, subsequent research by Spengler, Venkman and Stantz showed that crossing the streams is not only possible, but sometimes both necessary and beneficial.
I was just about to google Spangler, Venkman and Stantz... And then I got it, Doh!
Anyhow, with electromagnetism, aren't forces perpendicular to the flux lines?

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement