oh what im sure of is that when the patch comes in two weeks it will be undoable but i bet its the same from your perspective

im begining to believe the many limited benign worlds in which from YOUR perspective you always have a happy life but from the perspective of others you are miserable

honestly as i weather quantum inmortality is true i pray to god is not i far rather eincarnation, anhedonia its a terrible thing though im still a child in what bulletins refer

But people like me are here too - shouldn't I be beyond the event horizon? :grin:

Actually it's the other way around, still there are many options for the individual to "adjust" his own life, doesn't change the whole though.


Can't remember - or was it when I suggested you should study art?
I still think that's best for you. Seriously, you're a 12 year old in the body of an adult.
Artists are usually more tolerant, so you have a real chance of survival in their community.


Whom are you talking to?
Me?
If so, you got it wrong again.

So what? You claimed that ranking is based on traffic. Show me ANYWHERE that states Google knows the traffic level of every server it indexes and how it uses that information in the ranking.

As usual, you just ignore and/or deflect the questions that prove you are wrong.


It said that AS FAR AS THE AUTHOR KNOWS no one took it into account. That does not mean that it was never taken into account.

Regardless, just because it was not taken into account does not mean that it was not addressed. It may not have been possible to take it into account at that time and thus it was chosen to ignore it until the technology was capable of more accurate measurements. That's why I said you should find out exactly what the experiment was and how it was done.

But you didn't do that. Instead you just regurgitated the same stuff that others had been saying for years.

Of course, NONE OF THAT MATTERS because, thanks to your magic "4th hit on google", we now know that Einstein has been shown to be accurate.


You should write that you will not be taking anymore physics classes because it is obvious to even the most dessicated pile of howler monkey feces that you will never be able to pass.

How can you not understand something so simple?

The EQUATION is NOT a function of the surfaces.
The coefficient of friction IS A FUNCTION OF THE SURFACES.

So it is true that, when manipulating the equation there is no dependence on the surface, BUT, when determining the coefficient of friction it is dependent on the surface.





There is nothing false or counter intuitive about it. Little kids and 108 year old fresh out of the amazon tribal elders can understand the above. Why do you refuse to learn it?


The above statement is so stupid it can't be described by any language currently existing on this planet. I do not discount, however, the possibility of some alien language being able to adequately express the aforementioned level of the statement's stupidity.



You have failed to completely describe the system, however, it can still be answered...

The acceleration of each body will be equal to the sum of the forces acting upon it divided by its mass.

--Outlaw.

"The coefficient of friction IS A FUNCTION OF THE SURFACES."

of course since the friction coeficient is the tangent of the angle of the ramp when the box starts to move

so then you admitt those links saying friction being INDEPENDENT OF SURFACE are wrong

also you admit einstein couldnt have measured atmospheric starlight bending

then how COULD that eclipse have proof him and give him the nobel prize, maybe a fraud?

edit:

thsi thread is very RELEVANT in gravity falsified

yours as well for those planes and that year but who would search your words while mine are very common

edit:

outlaw youre the perfect exmplae of sophist with slight trolling for your slight personal attacaks

seems you want to convince somebody else not me for your ridiculous arguments

will you plz answer me this clear question with yes or no plz?

is force of friction dependant of apparent area of contact?
a)YES
b)NO
c)snoopy discovered america

No, I do not admit that. I have clearly shown how both statements can be true at the same time.

What is so hard to understand about the above statement?

No, I NEVER admitted anything about the specifics of that experiment.

Because you work with the tools & technology available at the time and make the best decisions based on that. A roundup infused rosebush has the brain power required to understand that.

You could say, "maybe", about EVERYTHING...

Maybe we are in a matrix
Maybe we are in a truman show
Maybe we are all jellyfish like beings living in a big vat of mind altering drugs in an alien kids version of a fish tank
Maybe we are all just tiny little specks about the size of Mickey Rooney
Maybe every third person we see is a time traveler
Maybe your black hole has a huge event horizon

None of it can be proven yet you talk as if it's fact.

By definition the above can't be proven except in the brain damaged mind of a drug addict so what is the point of even talking about it?


Once again, DEFLECTION on your part. Your original statement said NOTHING about relevance. You didn't even know what the word meant until I said it.

So why won't you back up your statement that Google ranks based on traffic or admit that you are wrong? You have claimed many times that you admit when you are wrong but it is clear now that you were lying.

--Outlaw.

nope how google ranks webs its a mistery i wathced on tv that traffic influenced a lot

so to my question if force of friction is dependant of surface your answer is yes and no both

tell me how could have einstein accounted for sun atmosphere star light bending being this 15 time bigger than gravitational lensing

you could save words like drug adict damged mind, more stupid than a plant

you know too well thats what a child does when losing an argument

how did eisntein account for atmospheric starlight bending

is howed you one link that explain this wasnt account till the 90s show me one where shows he did account for this eeffect

the balls in your side since every knows he couldnt know what the sun atmosphere was like

edit:


galileo tomamas and culomb and my teacher have a very clear answer for this:

is force of friction(not coeficient of friction) dpendant of surface?


a)yes
b)no
c)yes and no ;)

wrong answer will be 3.333333..... negative points

edit:

outlaw you brough up an interesting point:

i have a damage mind cause i take my ramblings as FACT

wel in this thread i havemention i DIDNT KNOW if relativity was true or not, in fact in the graviational lensing or not happening is the key on causality, although this was brought down imo by INSTANT quantum entanglement

so im QUESTIONING relativity

while you take relativity as FACT

who has the damaged mind then?

me who question and realizes i know nothing for sure

or you who takes OTHERS experiences and stories as FACT

If that is true, the person who stated that is incorrect. You claim you question everything but you accept that TV show as FACT! Why have you not researched it? You can find the answer easily if you take a few minutes. Yet you refuse. Why is that?

We all know the answer but please enlighten us anyway.

I have clearly shown the answer and even asked what part you don't understand. In response you just regurgitate the same garbage you have been spouting.

Why won't you respond to my specific question?

I already said I don't know the specifics of the experiment. Furthermore, I have NEVER stated that he did account for it.

I have no interest in finding out the specifics of the experiment. If you want to know, YOU go find out.

You are arguing a point THAT I NEVER MADE.

And you could have avoided calling engineers and scientists stupid. You could have avoided calling everyone that did not believe you stupid. But you didn't.

You are incapable of understanding the context of their answers or even of your question. That...is why you fail.

Besides, I already answered this one above.


You will NEVER be able to experimentally determine ANYTHING so, by your logic, NOTHING WILL EVER BE TRUE.

I take relativity as fact not because of an experiment in 1919, but because of recent experiments. You act as if nothing has been done since 1919.

And to reiterate, I NEVER stated that the 1919 experiment(s) took refraction into account.

--Outlaw.

to my question is the force necesary to beat friction surface dependant?

your answer: yes and no it depends

you see how youre a chip sophist who dont mind the truth how can a thing be and not be?

next questions:

do you THINK einstein took into acount atmospheric starlight bending when he got the nobel prize for light bending?

yes-no

do you think he should?

yes-no

No, that was NOT my answer. I have ALWAYS said YES. I have NEVER said no or it depends.

I'm sorry that you can't understand what I'm saying but that's your problem and does not make it false.

I can't possibly answer that with a yes or no. I know absolutely nothing about the experiment. Only a total and complete idiot would give a yes or no answer to that question without researching the experiment.

Once again, that's not a yes or no question.

If the experimenter had the capability to do so then he/she should have. If not, then there should be no expectation for them to do so. If the knowledge that refraction was a possibility in the experiment it should, of course, be addressed by the experimenter.

--Outlaw.

http://www.tribology-abc.com/abc/history.htm

then science history is a farce

Da Vinci simply stated that:

the areas in contact have no effect on friction.
if the load of an object is doubled, its friction will also be doubled.
Note that the first statement is counterintuitive; most of us would assume that friction does depend upon the cross-sectional area.