THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM AMERICAN BIG GAME HUNTING FORUMS

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Hunting  Hop To Forums  American Big Game Hunting    Reading for those that worship at the alter of foot pounds of energy
Page 1 2 3 

Moderators: Canuck
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Reading for those that worship at the alter of foot pounds of energy
 Login/Join
 
one of us
posted Hide Post
Jagter, please tell me you aren't trying to say "moment of inertia" doesn't exist. That would be a statement of ignorance.
 
Posts: 920 | Location: Mukilteo, WA | Registered: 29 November 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Jagter
posted Hide Post
Jon A, decide for yourself - read this article.


OWLS
My Africa, with which I will never be able to live without!
 
Posts: 654 | Location: RSA, Mpumalanga, Witbank. | Registered: 21 April 2005Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
/
 
Posts: 7857 | Registered: 16 August 2000Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
/
 
Posts: 7857 | Registered: 16 August 2000Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jagter:
Jon A, decide for yourself - read this article.

It's not up to me to decide any more than it is for area, mass or length. You don't know what the term means (it actually has a couple depending upon context). You don't have much of an Engineering background, do you?
 
Posts: 920 | Location: Mukilteo, WA | Registered: 29 November 2001Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Hey Jon A, It does seem you have alf, jageter, mark young, etc. figured out. They are clueless!
 
Posts: 9920 | Location: Carolinas, USA | Registered: 22 April 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Did I hear a noise out there in the dark?
 
Posts: 145 | Location: RSA | Registered: 02 September 2005Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Jagter
posted Hide Post
Alf, since you say:
quote:
Mr Ethan Skylar is duping us with clever word play and reasoning ?


I am not going to answer your question and quote formulae for the points above right now. I've requested Ethan Skyler himself to reply to me, but since he is fairly tied up in his own and new business establishing for his son at present, it may take some time for him to come back to us.
Patience please!

In the meantime, think about this one:

The formula for:
Distance travelled = Miles per hour x time travelled.
All three these units in the above formula are man-invented rating systems, namely distance, mph and time - no doubt about that!
As we have already seen out of Skylers' work man-invented rating systems can not cause any event!!!
What caused the movement that took place from point A to B since some distance was travelled here?

Highlight lines after this line -
Does formulae always tell us what caused the event that took place or do we have to use other means and methods to arrive at a logical answer?


OWLS
My Africa, with which I will never be able to live without!
 
Posts: 654 | Location: RSA, Mpumalanga, Witbank. | Registered: 21 April 2005Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
/
 
Posts: 7857 | Registered: 16 August 2000Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Jagter
posted Hide Post
If I were the judge I would have still fined Ethan Skyler.
Reason: He simply applied more acceleration/Action force to his car than what is allowed by the man laid down laws in the area where he travelled.

Nothing has changed in this 'man made derivations' world both you and Skyler live in, although the fact that an a/A force was mentioned we know now what caused the event of a speed limit that was exceeded according to the laws laid down.

Major difference, isn't it?


OWLS
My Africa, with which I will never be able to live without!
 
Posts: 654 | Location: RSA, Mpumalanga, Witbank. | Registered: 21 April 2005Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
In response to the orginal thread title....

I don't worship at the altar of ft/lbs energy, on the other hand....

** I enjoy having plenty of energy on impact (versus a shortage)
** Medium velocities have a lot to be said for them, though if you are "reaching out there" hyper-velocities have merit
** "Heavy for caliber" premium bullets are heart warming (penetration)
** Large frontal cross section calibers give a harder "thump"

It is all a trade off of factors.


----------------------------------
Never Go Undergunned, Always Check The Sight In, Perform At Show Time.

Good judgment comes from bad experience! Learn from the mistakes of others as you won't live long enough to make them all yourself!
 
Posts: 289 | Location: Denver, Colorado | Registered: 16 January 2003Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Jagter
posted Hide Post
After quite some time a reply to Alf's question above re 'mathematical derivations' (formulae) and Jon A's remark re 'Engineering background'.

The following link will take you to an article which may finally help you to get a clear understanding of the cause of events in hunting.


OWLS
My Africa, with which I will never be able to live without!
 
Posts: 654 | Location: RSA, Mpumalanga, Witbank. | Registered: 21 April 2005Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
And that has exactly what to do with "moment of inertia" being some sort of myth?

Dick, that's what. Maybe you should be looking for texts named Mechanics of Materials or Materials Engineering or any of a few thousand physics texts.

I don't get my Engineering expertise from internet hunting pages...thank God.
 
Posts: 920 | Location: Mukilteo, WA | Registered: 29 November 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Jagter
posted Hide Post
quote:
Jon A, decide for yourself - read this article.

With your engineering background it should be a piece of cake!


OWLS
My Africa, with which I will never be able to live without!
 
Posts: 654 | Location: RSA, Mpumalanga, Witbank. | Registered: 21 April 2005Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Jagter, I'm not sure if you're really this, uhm...slow, or if you're putting me on for some sort of entertainment purpose.

Claiming something doesn't exist while displaying clearly you don't know the meaning of the thing you're claiming doesn't exist is an odd way to pass the time in my opinion.

Here's a hint: When used in the term "moment of inertia" the word "moment" does not denote a point in time. Nor does it have anything to do with time. The word has other meanings, you know. Maybe you should look them up, open your mind and figure out which applies to this context.

The term can also have zero to do with inertia or even mass. When you see those silly words like "cross sectional" in front of it, that's usually a good indication.

I'm trying to be nice here, but as somebody educated in these subjects who uses these terms every day in the analysis of structure of jet airplanes, it's hard not to get annoyed while arguing with the uneducated.

Much like the guy who finds energy isn't the absolute, complete and total indication of terminal performance and therefore desides it "doesn't exist." That it's simply a term that gunwriters "made up," because that's the only place he has read about it. Yeah, sure. [I'm not refering to anybody specifically in this thread, but the search function will turn up many such statements.]

Claiming terms, the very meaning of which you don't understand, don't exist because you don't understand them is fine if it makes you happy. Just know it causes everybody with more than a high-school education in the subjects to chuckle, roll back his eyes and put anything you ever say from that point forward as highly suspect.
 
Posts: 920 | Location: Mukilteo, WA | Registered: 29 November 2001Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Right on the nose Jon A.
---

It seems that a few folks, jagter included, got their Ballistic Education at the:

"alf Institute of no first-hand experience"

Pitiful!
 
Posts: 9920 | Location: Carolinas, USA | Registered: 22 April 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Jagter
posted Hide Post
Jon A, as to who is really "uhm...slow", I think you already know the answer after having read the specific article above already twice and still not getting it. Try again. Who knows, maybe you're lucky the third time round!
Só, decide for yourself who is really educated and who not.

As far as I'm concerned, your ability to judge for yourself and make what you've learned over the years applicable in practice, is already highly suspect.
Thus frustrating rather than entertaining!


OWLS
My Africa, with which I will never be able to live without!
 
Posts: 654 | Location: RSA, Mpumalanga, Witbank. | Registered: 21 April 2005Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Jagter
posted Hide Post
quote:
Posted 09 July 2006 20:36
After quite some time a reply to Alf's question above re 'mathematical derivations' (formulae) and Jon A's remark re 'Engineering background'.

The following link will take you to an article which may finally help you to get a clear understanding of the cause of events in hunting.


Jon A, also something more about your 'moment of inertia' as explained by Ethan Skyler:
quote:
On another issue, the term "moment of inertia" is misnamed. It is another
example of attempting to grant reality to "inertia" where none exists. Moment
refers to a theoretical concentration of the matter of a rotating object at an
average distance at right angle to the axis of rotation. Think of moment as a
lever with one end attached to the fixed axis and some distance away all the
object's matter is concentrated at and fastened to the lever. Now to impose
angular acceleration for the object's matter a force (torque) must be applied
to the lever. Newton's formula is modified to take into account the length of
the radius (lever) and then it fully applies to predicting the correct angular
acceleration that will result.

Where in here do you see the presence of "inertia"? There is talk about
how the object's matter "resists" the tangential acceleration/Action force but
such is not the case. Yes an a/A force is required to cause angular
acceleration (either speeding up or slowing down of its rate of rotation). But
just as in linear acceleration events, with friction absent, there is no
evidence of any such "inertial" resistance to acceleration. Once the a/A
torque force is present, angular acceleration is immediate and without any
sort of internal inert "inertial" resistance. As in linear accelerational
events, such predictions are based not upon experiment but upon poor
reasoning. Clearly a complete lack of understanding of the supportive but
always non-resistive acceleration/Reaction force is their problem.

Accordingly the false and misleading term "moment of inertia" needs to be
replaced by a term that is based upon the quantity of the object's matter and
the distance this matter is positioned, when averaged, from the axis of the
actual object's rotation. Something like "moment of matter". As always, matter
is real, "inertia" is unreal. Someday we will all laugh at how Physics got
this sooo wrong.
Ethan Skyler.


OWLS
My Africa, with which I will never be able to live without!
 
Posts: 654 | Location: RSA, Mpumalanga, Witbank. | Registered: 21 April 2005Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
OK. So semantics is what's important. I see.

What you've been saying all this time is akin to saying that Hot Dogs do not exist. When you buy them at the store, they're cold. And they aren't really made from dogs are they? Nevermind the term has been defined as describing exactly those "cold processed meat sticks" you buy at the store to everybody for as long as we can remember, let's claim that the meat sticks themselves do not exist because of a semantical arguement over the appropriateness of their name!

What a waste of time.

Tell me, what does this Skyler kid actually do for a living besides post on the internet? How many structures or machines has he designed while ignoring moments of inertia in all its various forms? I'll bet they worked out really well. Roll Eyes What sort of peer reviewed works has he published anywhere but his own web blog? What sort of experiments has he conducted to back up statements like this?

quote:
the predictions of Albert Einstein's theory are without meaning.


Hawking must really blow this kid's mind.... Eeker
 
Posts: 920 | Location: Mukilteo, WA | Registered: 29 November 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Jagter
posted Hide Post
Jon A, since "inertia" is so real as Hot Dogs for you, just answer these easy questions:

How much does your own "inertia" weigh, what size is it and what force can it withstand?

Once you have determined the above, please tell us how you did go about to get the answers?


OWLS
My Africa, with which I will never be able to live without!
 
Posts: 654 | Location: RSA, Mpumalanga, Witbank. | Registered: 21 April 2005Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
How many gallons tall are you? How many meters do you weigh? Really dumb questions, right?

The inertias I deal with every day come with units of inches to the fourth power. Has nothing to do with weight and alone cannot tell you how much force anything can withstand (although it is a big part of how you find that out).
 
Posts: 920 | Location: Mukilteo, WA | Registered: 29 November 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Jagter
posted Hide Post
quote:
The inertias I deal with every day come with units of inches to the fourth power. Has nothing to do with weight and alone cannot tell you how much force anything can withstand (although it is a big part of how you find that out).

In your own words, kid:
quote:
Dick, that's what.

Once again:
quote:
Jon A, as to who is really "uhm...slow", I think you already know the answer after having read the specific article above already twice and still not getting it. Try again. Who knows, maybe you're lucky the third time round!
Só, decide for yourself who is really educated and who not.

As far as I'm concerned, your ability to judge for yourself and make what you've learned over the years applicable in practice, is already highly suspect.
Thus frustrating rather than entertaining!


You should really stand on a cliff's edge and get somebody to push you unexpectedly - sincerely hope your own 'inertia' will keep you from falling to your untimely death!


OWLS
My Africa, with which I will never be able to live without!
 
Posts: 654 | Location: RSA, Mpumalanga, Witbank. | Registered: 21 April 2005Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
/
 
Posts: 7857 | Registered: 16 August 2000Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Jagter
posted Hide Post
Alf, ou seun: First of all just this, the only and single one item that Ethan Skyler has ever questioned about Newton's work is his ridiculous definition of 'inertia' which he, Newton himself, has never, ever used in any of his other works - although he defined it!
The rest of Newton's work is exactly what all Skyler's work is based on plus other classical physicists like Galileo, etc.

Hopefully you will now understand what I said to you earlier in another thread:
quote:
Alf,

quote:
Classic Newtonian derivations are still the norm and will likely remain the norm for many years to come, unquote:


Who disagreed with the above?
Neither me nor Ethan Skyler in any of his works or comments - you're fighting your shadow over this and in the process don't understand what you're reading!

And I would now like to add: what I refer you to, to read - I simply think you don't do that! It is clear from your persistent standpoint re 'inertia' in your posts, not being able to judge for yourself anything new and far more logical brought up by people like Ethan Skyler.

However, here is Wikipedia's view of 'inertia' you referred me to:
quote:
Inertia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about inertia as it applies to physics. For other meanings, see inertia (disambiguation)

The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental laws of classical physics which are used to describe the motion of matter and how it is affected by applied forces. The concept of inertia is today most commonly defined using Isaac Newton's First Law of Motion, which states:

Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight ahead, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed. [Cohen & Whitman 1999 translation]


Ethan Skyler's view of it - just an introductory discussion:
quote:
Article I
In his great work, "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", known today more simply as "PRINCIPIA" [1], Isaac Newton described inertia as the "force of inactivity". He went on to say that an object maintained its state of rest, or uniform motion (same state) "by its inertia only." In other words "resting" and "uniformly moving" objects were viewed by Newton as being equally inactive and further that this inactivity was being maintained by the force Newton called "inertia". Thus, according to Newton's description, the object's "force of inertia" must serve in some manner to prevent activity from occurring to the object's state of motion if the object's "inactivity" is to be "maintained". With rest and uniform motion being the inactive state then a change in motion (acceleration) must be the active state that challenges the inactivity-maintaining power of the object's "inertia". Since the activity of acceleration is always caused by an accelerative force (Newton's LAW I), and further since every accelerative force always finds support against some other force of equal magnitude (Newton's LAW III), then it holds that Newton's inertia must be this other force that reacts in support of the accelerative force which is busy acting as the cause of the object's accelerational activity. (See references [2], [3], and [4]).

(2) But why then did Newton refer to inertia as being a "force of inactivity"? Clearly, any force that reacts in support for an acceleration-causing action force is itself a force that is a participant in the activity of acceleration. For certain, as long as the active acceleration force is present, the object will continue to accelerate with no end in sight. Therefore, in practice, any reactive inertia force directed back from the object does nothing to prevent the acceleration action force from continuing to cause acceleration for the object. In fact, it is clear that as long as the acceleration action force is impressed against the accelerating object, no force of any type is present that is successful in causing an end to the acceleration and thereby restoring the object once again to the non-accelerative inactive state of rest or uniform motion as Newton predicts is the true role of the object's inertia. In reality, during an accelerational event, I do not think there is any evidence of the presence of any "force of inactivity" that matches Isaac Newton's description for the role of inertia.


Now, both you and Jon A can take the trouble to read the rest of Ethan Skyler's article on the imaginary 'inertia' which he proved by experiment as well, to be non-existent.
Follow this link.

Hopefully you, Jon A and the rest of the world will learn something from this like I did.


OWLS
My Africa, with which I will never be able to live without!
 
Posts: 654 | Location: RSA, Mpumalanga, Witbank. | Registered: 21 April 2005Reply With Quote
new member
posted Hide Post
Just checking, as I am just a fairly new hunter down here in the south.

If I shoot a deer, placing the shot in the vitals, will the deer die? I used to think that this was the case, but since I don't know what will happen to the deer's 'moments of inertia', I am no longer sure.

I was feeling pretty good about a 180 grain Woodleigh out of my Enfield being a viable whitetail round,but now...............
 
Posts: 4 | Location: Clover, Sc | Registered: 04 February 2006Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Hunting  Hop To Forums  American Big Game Hunting    Reading for those that worship at the alter of foot pounds of energy

Copyright December 1997-2023 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia