What is it with Catholic Priests?

[Ben Kenobi]

Kinetic energy will be lost because of friction between the slab and the weight placed on top of it.

Which is what I just said.

Your answer: t = sqrt(S^2/2)/g
Correct answer: t = S/(3gµ)
What were you thinking?

I was mistaken as to which block was frictional, and which was not frictional.

[giblets]

I had two of the three questions correct. I missed the third because I, (and clearly you as well), misread the question.

But I really don't care gribbler.

I earned a 92 on my physics exam. Nothing you say can or will change what I worked very hard to earn.

Yes, I had difficulty with honours physics and astronomy at UBC. I had difficulty with my math courses. I I always had As in my physics classes all the way through the program.

I misread the question? You got it wrong. Not me. You're not making UBC look good.

[Ben Kenobi]

You first explicitly mention coefficient of static friction

The coefficient is Mu.

The Frictional force is three times as great when the block is added as previous.

you're not even calculating frictional force in there, since you're not multiplying by g.

Frictional force is directly proportional to the Fg on both objects combined. It's all right there.

[Ben Kenobi]

I misread the question? You got it wrong. Not me. You're not making UBC look good.

You accused me, then you backtracked, because you didn't understand what I was doing.

And Nestor can't seem to keep frictional Force and the coefficient straight.

Why does everyone go out of their way to prove me wrong? Why do they care so much?

[giblets]

Which is what I just said.



I was mistaken as to which block was frictional, and which was not frictional.

Another example of your total lack of reading comprehension. You were even given a diagram:


It's perfectly clear what is experiencing friction with what. And if the slab was experiencing friction with the ground, the final velocity would be zero, so your answer of "Vf = sqrt(S^2/2m)" would still be wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ok, since gribbler knows his physics, pull another question.

you have 4 hours before I have to go tutor more students in science and help them get As on their courses.

[N35t0r]

No, I don't. Not from what I've seen.

We have zero clue as to how the basics of life formed. We can kinda muck about but taking the basic chemical components, the elements, and transforming them into an amino acid chain, and even from there, building primitive life?

It's never been done.

Well, once at least.

We are asked to take on faith the current understanding as to how the process worked without any proof of such.

I haven't seen any theory as to the rate of evolutionary change which hasn't had a "trust me, I'm right" about it.

Nobody wants to touch this problem.

So we should instead take you on fath that it hasn't happened.


Furthermore, effective radiation received by DNA iside cells has only been declining since life exists, so it follows that rate of evolutionary change could have been higher in the past.

[giblets]

You accused me, then you backtracked, because you didn't understand what I was doing.

And Nestor can't seem to keep frictional Force and the coefficient straight.

Why does everyone go out of their way to prove me wrong? Why do they care so much?

Nestor was trying to explain to you that the coefficient of friction is a constant. µ is the coefficient of friction.

[Ben Kenobi]

So we should instead take you on fath that it hasn't happened.

I'm not asking you to. Don't take me on faith. Stop taking them on faith.

Furthermore, effective radiation received by DNA iside cells has only been declining since life exists, so it follows that rate of evolutionary change could have been higher in the past.

Could have. And maybe magic pixie dust came by to make all the problems go away.

Gogo magic pixie dust.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nestor was trying to explain to you that the coefficient of friction is a constant.

and I was referring to the Frictional force being three times as high.

µ is the coefficient of friction.

wow, it's a good thing you are here.

can you tell me what lambda is?

how about sigma?

[giblets]

and I was referring to the Frictional force being three times as high.



wow, it's a good thing you are here.

can you tell me what lambda is?

how about sigma?

Uh, no. Here's what he was commenting on:

So the coefficient of static friction now is 3M(mu) as opposed to M(mu)

You were getting your two different terms mixed up, and Nestor was attempting to explain this to you.

[Hauldren Collider]

LOL my physics problem

what a classic

[Hauldren Collider]

Ok, since gribbler knows his physics, pull another question.

you have 4 hours before I have to go tutor more students in science and help them get As on their courses.

****ing them in the ass won't help ANY of their grades

Fraudsters

[Ben Kenobi]

You were getting your two different terms mixed up, and Nestor was attempting to explain this to you.

Ok.

Are you having a hard time reading what I'm saying.

I wrote right here in the thread, where you accused me of not understanding the concepts.

I wrote it out right here that the FORCE of friction is three times higher, with both weights combined.

Why are you arguing against what I wrote months ago? I was thinking out loud, trying to answer the question before I had to head out the door.

I figured had I left the question when I had more time, that you'd accuse me of running away. Oh, as you did anyways.

[Ben Kenobi]

Since I'm a fraud, put up another question.

You can't lose, because I'll get it wrong for sure.