Clarifying The Buzsaw Position

quote:

---

Since energy must be conserved, what happened? Where'd the energy go?

---

What you are describing is called an inelastic collision. A collision where the kinetic energy is conserved is called an elastic collision.The missing energy went into either deformation of one or both of the bodies, or it was converted into heat energy. (And an increase in entropy, just in case you want to get some thermodynamics into this, too.) So

quote:

---

Imagine 2 perfectly elastic objects moving on a 2-dimensional frictionless surface.

---

was the wrong assumption.-

quote:

---

My guess is that the system is actually constrained by natural laws to behave in a certain way, and that it is actually impossible for object A to be stationary after the collision.

---

Actually you are correct.Under the assumption of perfectly elastic collision, then, yes, one can exactly predict the resultant motion of both bodies since conservation of kinetic energy constrains the problem (although one may still have to specify either the direction or the speed of one of the bodies after the collision -- I forget the exact details).But in an inelastic collision, since some of the kinetic energy is converted to a non-mechanical form (or, perhaps, a source of energy adds kinetic energy to the system -- say putting some sort of contact explosive on one of the balls), then there is one less constraint and so it is not possible to predict the motion of both bodies.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

It's bizarre isn't it! You are not setting the system up with any possibility of losing energy anywhere, yet it forces you to do exactly that. No, it can be stationary, but it has to have a way of losing energy. With macroscopic systems, this is trivial... deformation, sound, heat, etc. When we get down to particles, that is where we see the constraints because you cannot just "lose" eneregy. How does an electron lose energy? Only through emitting a photon. But there are precise rules that govern this, so you can't start playing billiards with electrons!

Thanks for the explanation. That website Buz found describes it like this: What I was trying to say originally was that this is just plain wrong. While all things that spin have angular momentum, not all systems with angular momentum contain spinning objects.This has been real helpful because the separate conservation of linear and angular momentum was previously a fuzzy concept within my mind, and it feels much more concrete now. Thanks!--Percy

Hi Buz,Don't know what happened to you, but I found I needed to reexamine my position. If you've read through this thread then you know that I was wrong about a couple things. First I confused momentum and kinetic energy. Then I found I never really understood angular momentum.Both mistakes were somewhat profound. About the first, looking back on my education I realize that I only studied momentum in a mechanics context using perfectly elastic balls, and I don't think it was ever drummed into me that momentum is a conserved quantity whether the balls are perfectly elastic or not. I'm amazed that I could go this long with this misconception. And the realization came in a thread you started.My second error, where I believed that linear and angular momentum could be converted back and forth, was also a misconception of long standing. As near as a recall I learned these concepts independently, and somewhere along the line I just assumed one could be converted to the other. It also included the misconception that only spinning objects could have angular momentum. When Chiroptera and Cavediver challenged me on what I said and forced me to think through the consequences it was as if the scales had suddenly fallen from my eyes. And again, this happened in a thread you started.I find these to be pretty embarrassing mistakes. I keep having to fight the urge to try to minimize them by claiming I really understood things but just misspoke, or that I was just trying to put things in terms that creationists would understand. But neither of these would be true. The fact of the matter is that my understanding of momentum was profoundly flawed.It has often been offered in your defense that the detailed focus your approach forces to take place enables people to learn and understand things in ways they hadn't previously. I've learned many, many things over the years here at EvC and at other venues prior to this, but I've never actually experienced being corrected in so significant a misconception until now (either because I'm so brilliant or so pig-headed, take your pick), but the value of your approach is more apparent to me now.My concerns about buggering science threads remain, but I think some balance is called for. It feels unreasonable to me now to request that you completely avoid the science threads, and so I'm going to back off and merely ask that you restrict participation to only one or possibly two science threads at a time.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Percy. I've been quite busy and not all that anxious to respond as I was doing some more reading up on QM and other stuff before coming back. I really didn't want to show up without substantial goods due to the way you were going at me on things. Please don't knock Google. It's a bit like an interlinear Greek/English NT. I studied the fundamentals of Ancient Greek at Bob Jones U where I had my three semesters of college, dropping out due to my dad needing me in his business. The interlinear is next best thing to an education in the Greek language. Well Googling the www is a wonderful 2nd best to a degree which is a great asset to the busy ole man having little time to read books or getting a degree.I found some more support for my QM position and learned more about QM in the process but since it would be off topic and unnecessary now I'll drop it except for one quote from a Maggie in another forum who was discussing QM. http://community.seedmagazine.com/comments.php?Discussion...She wonders if it's correct. I'm inclined to think it is quite cool from what I've read on the subject. Any thoughts on that?It was a great relief to me to have you reconsider your hard lined approach to the problem. I'm also very greatful that you are reconsidering what I and some others see as too restrictive on science matters.Now, my friend, since this is not a science thread I'm going to suggest the scientific impossibility. This empirically proves there's a god as I've been praying to God regarding some of these concerns being I really figured it'd take an act of God for you to soften your position on these things. Btw, I'm still scratching my head on your problem with the Hoot Man issue. I still think the pile of stuff is evidence of decreased entropy and not the other way around. I've been thinking a lot on that and I think I can make a pretty good case for my position, but am aware that again this is not the place for anything indepth. Perhaps if you don't mind, I'll go back and offer a response to Hoot Mon. What say you?I'm perfectly satisfied with being restricted to one or two sience threads and appreciate very much having you allow that. I'll work to keep my nose clean in whatever I do there, but am assuming now that I'll be allowed to debate as an IDist creo so long as I work within sensible perameters of science.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

I'm not sure anyone who can say this... ...can do this... I'm not saying the web isn't a wonderful resource, it is, but in the hands of someone with absolutely no ability to discriminate science from nonsense it is a wasted resource.The fact that you think that a comment from someone on a website is any sort of relevant support for your theories demonstrates why this is the case. Especially since the fact that someone uses the terms 'QM' and 'solar system' in the same sentence is a million miles away from meaning that any of the things you were speculating about are applicable to either.TTFN,WK

Buz's method is to find a site which says something he likes and then presume it's accurate. He as much as admitted it when I asked him to explain why he believed that an article from a penny stock website about hurricane frequency should be considered accurate. He didn't even carry out basic checks on it - although he was quite happy to complain that opponents weren't dealing with the "facts".If he had done the research he could have found NOAA's list of hurricanes which proved his source wrong or NOAA's article on hurricane frequency. And not embarassed himself by promoting an article that could be easily found to be wrong. The web is a wonderful resource - but only if used properly. There's a lot of nonsense out there.

quote:

---

Maggie writes:

​

QM works for our solar system because quantum physics, in the "large" limit, turns into newtonian physics....

​

She wonders if it's correct. I'm inclined to think it is quite cool from what I've read on the subject. Any thoughts on that?

---

What she says is that we don't see any of the weirdness of QM at the scale of the Solar System and in fact Newtonian mechanics works fine for most of it. So in fact she disagrees with you. There isn't any need to invoke QM to explain things at the scale of the solar system.

Hi Buz,Yes, please go ahead and reply about Hoot Mon's issues.Take what other people have said about the Internet as a research resource to heart. You can literally find a website advocating every point of view. Since they can't all be right you have to develop the ability to discriminate between sense and nonsense. Concerning science, the question to ask yourself is whether a particular point of view is supported by replicated observations and experiments focused on the real world.For example, you can find websites advocating pyramid power as a source of healing power. Is there anything to it? Well, let's ask whether pyramid power is supported by replicated observations and experiments focused on the real world (since the claims are medical the studies have to be double blind). It is not. Skepticism is appropriate.Can QM apply to objects the size of the solar system? Well, is such a view supported by replicated observations and experiments focused on the real world? No, it is not. Skepticism is appropriate. If you're going to advocate this point of view then be aware that without supporting scientific evidence you have no effective counter to the immense wealth of evidence that QM applies only to the very small.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Paul, this is getting very old. This little incident occurred what --2 years ago or so? You've been citing this little controversial issue adnausium over and over and over and over as your itty bitty nasty little meanspirited drive to malign the ole man. I advise that if you really have the goods, put up or shut up. If you're going to malign the ole man as some kind of a stupid ass imbecile and you're this impeccable super intelligent EvC whiz kid, at least come up with something more substantial and current as evidence.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

quote:

---

Paul, this is getting very old. This little incident occurred what --2 years ago or so? You've been citing this little controversial issue adnausium over and over and over and over as your itty bitty nasty little meanspirited drive to malign the ole man

---

What's controversial about it ? And I only cite it when there's a reason. If you admit your mistakes, make good faith efforts to avoid them and mvoe on that's one thing. But you're still citing nonsense websites even now.

quote:

---

I advise that if you really have the goods, put up or shut up. If you're going to malign the ole man as some kind of a stupid ass imbecile and you're this impeccable super intelligent EvC whiz kid, at least come up with something more substantial and current as evidence.

---

Sure, your citation of the hyperflight website is another example of your citing rubbish off the web. That is the one we've been talking about here.. And if you've admitted that your reason for citing the penny stock website as accurate and "factual" was nonsense - at any time since the incident happened - I haven't seen it.I'm under no obligation to ignore your faults or pretend that you're perfect. So stop acting as if I am.

WK, if the truth were known, likely there's a whole lot more googling going on around here than most of you people want to admit to resorting to for support of your postions on various topics, all the while leaving the reader to think it's all right up there in in your photographic minds which immediately recall everything scientific you're ever read or learned.Imo, the problem you people really have with google is that it allows little people like this ole undegreed fart to dig up the goods necessarily to sucessfully refute (on occasion) the elite majority viewpoint members and document support to our own (on occasion). Imo likely some of you who cite dozens of science books we IDists should be reading don't do all that much book reading yourselves but rather get up your info from this wonderful engine of knowledge, google.Yes, there's everything on google, the good the bad, the nonsense and the facts we all must sort out, discarding the false and holding to truth.Btw, my friend, just where did the ole man get up the stuff that allowed such as me to surface the issue at hand here in this thread in order that we all and the www can learn something from it? If you answered 'google' you're correct. Where did I find the needed correct support? Google. Where is it that I have bookmarked or in documents, more support for my position if needed? Google. Where can I check out my spelling to participate here? Google. Where can I learn more about the position of a debate counterpart and to render objective judgement before responding? Google. On and on I could go, but please, please don't try to tell me that in order to participate in the debate I must needs espouse the the secularistic ideology of you people in a forum that advertizes fair and balance in the on going evolution vs creationist debate so far as how I must interpret what both sides of the debate are observing.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Well thanks for providing more evidence

quote:

---

WK, if the truth were known, likely there's a whole lot more googling going on around here than most of you people want to admit to resorting to for support of your postions on various topics, all the while leaving the reader to think it's all right up there in in your photographic minds which immediately recall everything scientific you're ever read or learned

---

Noobdy is sayign that you shouldn't use google. Nobody is saying that they don't use google. What you are beign told is that you need to use it carefully and get your facts right.

quote:

---

Imo, the problem you people really have with google is that it allows little people like this ole undegreed fart to dig up the goods necessarily to sucessfully refute (on occasion) the elite majority viewpoint members and document support to our own (on occasion).

---

So now you're pretending that your opponents have a "problem" with google as an excuse to pretned that anything you happen to like is true if you can find it on the web.So now I know - your objection to my point isn't because it's an old mistake and you've changed your ways. It's because you HAVEN'T changed your ways. You just don't want people knowing about it.

Edited out double post.Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

quote:

---

Yes, there's everything on google, the good the bad, the nonsense and the facts we all must sort out, discarding the false and holding to truth.

---

Yes.We ALL have to do that.And some of us are clearly better at this sorting than others.I'd also like to point out, before you don the mantle of "poor ol' picked on Buz", that everybody here polices everybody else's source material. I've been challenged plenty of times by people you would consider in the same camp as on the quality of my sources. So have many others on "our" side.

quote:

---

Imo, the problem you people really have with google is that it allows little people like this ole undegreed fart to dig up the goods necessarily to sucessfully refute (on occasion) the elite majority viewpoint members and document support to our own (on occasion). Imo likely some of you who cite dozens of science books we IDists should be reading don't do all that much book reading yourselves but rather get up your info from this wonderful engine of knowledge, google.

---

And here we see the insecurity of the relatively uneducated and the suspicion and resentment of academic achievement and expertise.Buzsaw, why do you fear and despise educated people?