Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2015, 10:33:31 AM
LOL your declarations such as:  are completely confused tripe.  Force is required to a-c-c-l-e-r-a-t-e a mass because of the mass' property of inertia.  You just keep goring round and round on the same fail.

Yes, once again force is required to accelerate a mass because of the mass resisting a change in it's motion, which is inertia.  I don't disagree with this.  I'm not talking about no inertia with an accelerating mass, as you continue to falsely assert.  It is you who keeps going round and round on the same fail and not me.  How many times do I have to say no inertia with constant velocity?  There's a big difference, and you're intentionally failing to make a distinction between acceleration and constant velocity.  A mass doesn't resist it's own motion at constant velocity, unless there is a change in that velocity, which is either a deceleration or an acceleration.  Stop intentionally being a jackass!  And no, this isn't an ad hominem attack as you will once again falsely assert.  It's an attack on your idea and concept of intentionally being a jackass.

I say velocity, then your reply is related to acceleration and not to velocity itself.  You're not fooling anyone MarkE!

Gravock

Quote from: gravityblock on August 22, 2015, 10:46:58 AM
Yes, once again force is required to accelerate a mass because of the mass resisting a change in it's motion, which is inertia.  I don't disagree with this.  I'm not talking about no inertia with an accelerating mass, as you continue to falsely assert.  It is you who keeps going round and round on the same fail and not me.  How many times do I have to say no inertia with constant velocity?  There's a big difference.  A mass doesn't resist it's own motion at constant velocity, unless there is a change in that velocity, which is either a deceleration or an acceleration.  Stop intentionally being a jackass!  And no, this isn't an ad hominem attack as you will once again falsely assert.  It's an attack on your idea and concept of intentionally being a jackass.

Gravock

LOL your argument is completely twisted around itself.  You attempt to use the description of inertia to claim that it doesn't exist.  It's hilarious.

Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2015, 10:50:33 AM
LOL your argument is completely twisted around itself.  You attempt to use the description of inertia to claim that it doesn't exist.  It's hilarious.

No, you have it backwards, as is normal for you.  You're attempting to use the description of inertia to claim it does exist and there is a resistance to an object's motion even though there is no change in it's motion.  According to you, Newton's first law is contradictory to itself.  It is you who has completely twisted the law of inertia around itself and made it contradictory.  You're pushing total nonsense MarkE.

Gravock

Quote from: gravityblock on August 22, 2015, 11:02:37 AM
No, you have it backwards, as is normal for you.  You're attempting to use the description of inertia to claim it does exist and there is a resistance to an object's motion even though there is no change in it's motion.  According to you, Newton's first law is contradictory to itself.  It is you who has completely twisted the law of inertia around itself and made it contradictory.  You're pushing total nonsense MarkE.

Gravock

LOL You are worse than wrong ... again.

Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2015, 11:08:25 AM
LOL You are worse than wrong ... again.

Yeah, from your inverted perception of reality where you put right for wrong, and wrong for right...then I guess that would be worse than wrong for you as always.

Gravock