User Tag List

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 18 to 34 of 79
  1. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is certainly potential energy with the person placing his weight on the table. If the person's feet slipped and fell (PK his/her face on the table), the drop in height is the change in potential energy translated into kinetic energy. Ouuuccchhhh, what a painful way to experiment with Newtonian mechanics .

  2. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes and the Earth's mass is just overwhelmingly huge .

    Quote Originally Posted by cooler View Post
    i believe in a newtonian world, both reference objects of mass are attracting to each other. ie, the racket mass is pulling onto earth's mass too.

  3. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete LSD View Post
    There is certainly potential energy with the person placing his weight on the table. If the person's feet slipped and fell (PK his/her face on the table), the drop in height is the change in potential energy translated into kinetic energy. Ouuuccchhhh, what a painful way to experiment with Newtonian mechanics .
    that is why it is better and simplier to express the racket in gram, not in newton.

  4. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your mind
    Posts
    809
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cooler View Post
    i believe in a newtonian world, both reference objects of mass are attracting to each other. ie, the racket mass is pulling onto earth's mass too.
    Then'd we'd have to consider the gravitational pull of the sun, as well. What messy business!

  5. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete LSD View Post
    Yes and the Earth's mass is just overwhelmingly huge .
    it takes minimum of 2 to tangles in the context of attraction

  6. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Now, don't jump into relativity where the gravity of an object warps space and time around it.

    Quote Originally Posted by cooler View Post
    i believe in a newtonian world, both reference objects of mass are attracting to each other. ie, the racket mass is pulling onto earth's mass too.

  7. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is a messy business if one were to travel to Mars or other planets within our solar system. Okay, we are off topic. Let's discuss this in Chit Chat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsumaranai View Post
    Then'd we'd have to consider the gravitational pull of the sun, as well. What messy business!

  8. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsumaranai View Post
    Then'd we'd have to consider the gravitational pull of the sun, as well. What messy business!
    again, that is why expression in newton is vague, it changes constantly even if the racket is not moving

  9. #26
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,941
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete LSD View Post
    Now, don't jump into relativity where the gravity of an object warps space and time around it.
    Yikes! This is geekily turning into a Star Trek convention.
    Beam me out of here, Scotty!

  10. #27
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete LSD View Post
    Now, don't jump into relativity where the gravity of an object warps space and time around it.
    no gravity can warp space and time like your mind pete
    Last edited by cooler; 04-12-2008 at 03:43 PM.

  11. #28
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Let's discuss Newtonian mechanics here: http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...527#post844527

  12. #29
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Lion City
    Posts
    555
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    another point to ponder. since every racket has a different CG (centre of gravity), how is it possible for the racket to be measured to the accuracy of 0.1grams? electronic balance will give a difference of 0.3grams when the racket is placed at different positions on the balance. unless they hang the racket from the tip and weigh them, then it may not be so accurate after all.

  13. #30
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your mind
    Posts
    809
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, now we can just simply say that the range for the mass is because of the slightly varying amount of material in each racket that they can't control to the nearest .1 grams.

  14. #31
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    80
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Mass does NOT equal Weight -___-

    Mass is expressed in Kilograms or Grams.
    Weight is expressed in Newtons.

    Get your units right >__>

  15. #32
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your mind
    Posts
    809
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Who exactly are you referring to?

  16. #33
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    80
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsumaranai View Post
    Who exactly are you referring to?
    Anybody who claims Weight is expressed in KiloGrams or Grams.

  17. #34
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    35,984
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    racket should be expressed in mass. the reason is simple. not only are we interested in how heavy the racket weighs on a scale, whose weight we can calculate by f=ma, we are also interested in how much force we need to accelerate the racket, which is more accurately expressed in mass, also due to f=ma.

    so in other words, 99% of the stores out there are giving us the correct units, but not the correct label.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 123
    : 05-23-2011, 12:23 AM
  2. Making a Badminton Film
    By Fernleif in forum General Forum
    Replies: 26
    : 11-09-2007, 10:32 AM
  3. Making a living at badminton
    By advent in forum General Forum
    Replies: 25
    : 06-15-2007, 06:39 AM
  4. making badminton the best
    By nypockus in forum General Forum
    Replies: 1
    : 02-26-2004, 02:42 PM

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
  •