could relativity proof have been falsified?

[raaaid]

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

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by raaaid

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?

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.

Originally Posted by raaaid

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

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.

Originally Posted by raaaid

do you think he should?

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.

[raaaid]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

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


--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.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by raaaid

Note that the first statement is counterintuitive; most of us would assume that friction does depend upon the cross-sectional area.

So what?
Yes it sounds odd, then again everybody can prover it in their own apartment.

btw: Are you ready yet for another wormhole dogfight(WDF2.0)?

[raaaid]

oh come on then why racing cars use such a big tyres

even outlaw agrees friction is surface dependant contrary to what the science geniouses said

Amontons' First Law: The force of friction is directly proportional to the applied load.
Amontons' Second Law: The force of friction is independent of the apparent area of contact.
Coulomb's Law of Friction: Kinetic friction is independent of the sliding velocity.

only thie 1st is true

[swiss]

need help?

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by raaaid

oh come on then why racing cars use such a big tyres

even outlaw agrees friction is surface dependant contrary to what the science geniouses said

Amontons' First Law: The force of friction is directly proportional to the applied load.
Amontons' Second Law: The force of friction is independent of the apparent area of contact.
Coulomb's Law of Friction: Kinetic friction is independent of the sliding velocity.

only thie 1st is true

Race cars have wide tires so you can do this: http://vimeo.com/5558243

Edit: I like this one as well

[raaaid]

well the discussions open what i dont know is how outlaws gonna feel by my side

cyclist use litle contact surface

put a ciclyst with a car tyres and tell me friction is independent of contact surface

traction is friction dependant, friction is NOT surface depnedant

TRACTION IS NOT SURFACE DEPENDANT

do you spot the lie?

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by raaaid

oh come on then why racing cars use such a big tyres

even outlaw agrees friction is surface dependant contrary to what the science geniouses said

How is it you claim to be such a genius free thinker yet you can't understand what I have said.

The sliding friction equation you quote makes some assumptions. Within those assumptions the friction force is independent of surface area. In other words (which you are likely incapable of understanding), within the context of that definition of sliding friction, it is correct to make such a statement.

In real world application it is often the case that those assumptions are not met. In those cases a bit of care and judgement must be exercised before using the equation.

It can't be made any simpler than that.

As far as rolling resistance goes, the definition clearly makes the assumption that there is a single point of contact. Everyone knows (except, possibly, those people that believe Google ranks searches based on traffic) that it is impossible to have a single point of contact.

So, arguing that you are being lied to about rolling friction is as far from intelligent as you can get because even a lump of broken concrete can understand the above assumption.

That does not mean that the rolling friction concept is not useful (just as the sliding friction concept is useful). It simply means that it must be used within the assumptions that are part of its definition. Outside those assumptions the aforementioned care and judgement must, once again, be brought into play.

--Outlaw.