Oz is sooooo stupid.
 

What a retard Oz is turning out to be.

It's clear the man never even heard of inertia.

He seems to think a lead keel has the same inertia
as a cast iron keel. He doesn't know or remember
the law of physics that states a body in motion
tends to remain in motion and a body at rest tends
to remain at rest.

When attached to a hull a keel is a body at rest
with respect to the hull. A cast iron keel will
stop faster if it hits an immovable object whereas
a lead keel (of identical mass) will stop slower.

It follows that the forces imparted to the hull
are less with a lead keel than a cast iron keel.

I guess Oz never heard of the benefits of crush
zones in automobile engineering that protect the
passengers by slowing the vehicle and passengers
down in not such an abrupt manner.

Simple physics but beyond a New Zealander's
ken.

S.Simon

Oz is sooooo stupid.
 

A lead keel cannot have identical mass to an iron keel. Identical weight,
but not mass, lead is a denser material.
"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
What a retard Oz is turning out to be.

It's clear the man never even heard of inertia.

He seems to think a lead keel has the same inertia
as a cast iron keel. He doesn't know or remember
the law of physics that states a body in motion
tends to remain in motion and a body at rest tends
to remain at rest.

When attached to a hull a keel is a body at rest
with respect to the hull. A cast iron keel will
stop faster if it hits an immovable object whereas
a lead keel (of identical mass) will stop slower.

It follows that the forces imparted to the hull
are less with a lead keel than a cast iron keel.

I guess Oz never heard of the benefits of crush
zones in automobile engineering that protect the
passengers by slowing the vehicle and passengers
down in not such an abrupt manner.

Simple physics but beyond a New Zealander's
ken.

S.Simon

Oz is sooooo stupid.
 

Sorry, if the weight is the same, the mass will also be the same, assuming
gravity is constant.

There's another word you're looking for, but it eludes me also.


"The Carrolls" wrote in message
...
A lead keel cannot have identical mass to an iron keel. Identical weight,
but not mass, lead is a denser material.
"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
What a retard Oz is turning out to be.

It's clear the man never even heard of inertia.

He seems to think a lead keel has the same inertia
as a cast iron keel. He doesn't know or remember
the law of physics that states a body in motion
tends to remain in motion and a body at rest tends
to remain at rest.

When attached to a hull a keel is a body at rest
with respect to the hull. A cast iron keel will
stop faster if it hits an immovable object whereas
a lead keel (of identical mass) will stop slower.

It follows that the forces imparted to the hull
are less with a lead keel than a cast iron keel.

I guess Oz never heard of the benefits of crush
zones in automobile engineering that protect the
passengers by slowing the vehicle and passengers
down in not such an abrupt manner.

Simple physics but beyond a New Zealander's
ken.

S.Simon

Oz is sooooo stupid.
 

"The Carrolls" wrote in message
...
A lead keel cannot have identical mass to an iron keel. Identical weight,
but not mass, lead is a denser material.

Have they changed the definition of "mass" while I wasn't looking?


Regards


Donal
--

Oz is sooooo stupid.
 

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
What a retard Oz is turning out to be.

Its the Ausheimer's.


It's clear the man never even heard of inertia.

He seems to think a lead keel has the same inertia
as a cast iron keel.

And why wouldn't it?

He doesn't know or remember
the law of physics that states a body in motion
tends to remain in motion and a body at rest tends
to remain at rest.

When attached to a hull a keel is a body at rest
with respect to the hull. A cast iron keel will
stop faster if it hits an immovable object whereas
a lead keel (of identical mass) will stop slower.


Why?

It follows that the forces imparted to the hull
are less with a lead keel than a cast iron keel.


Why?

I guess Oz never heard of the benefits of crush
zones in automobile engineering that protect the
passengers by slowing the vehicle and passengers
down in not such an abrupt manner.


How would you quantify that?

Simple physics but beyond a New Zealander's
ken.


Geography is beyond yours.

Oz is sooooo stupid.
 

Yes. It now includes Neal's skull as one of the most dense materials
know to man.

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"The Carrolls" wrote in message
...
A lead keel cannot have identical mass to an iron keel. Identical
weight,
but not mass, lead is a denser material.

Have they changed the definition of "mass" while I wasn't looking?


Regards


Donal
--

Oz is sooooo stupid.
 

Jeff,

Would "Denity" help?

OT

Oz is sooooo stupid.
 

Specific gravity.
http://mineral.galleries.com/mineral...ty/density.htm
John Cairns
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Sorry, if the weight is the same, the mass will also be the same, assuming
gravity is constant.

There's another word you're looking for, but it eludes me also.


"The Carrolls" wrote in message
...
A lead keel cannot have identical mass to an iron keel. Identical
weight,
but not mass, lead is a denser material.
"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
What a retard Oz is turning out to be.

It's clear the man never even heard of inertia.

He seems to think a lead keel has the same inertia
as a cast iron keel. He doesn't know or remember
the law of physics that states a body in motion
tends to remain in motion and a body at rest tends
to remain at rest.

When attached to a hull a keel is a body at rest
with respect to the hull. A cast iron keel will
stop faster if it hits an immovable object whereas
a lead keel (of identical mass) will stop slower.

It follows that the forces imparted to the hull
are less with a lead keel than a cast iron keel.

I guess Oz never heard of the benefits of crush
zones in automobile engineering that protect the
passengers by slowing the vehicle and passengers
down in not such an abrupt manner.

Simple physics but beyond a New Zealander's
ken.

S.Simon

Oz is sooooo stupid.
 

My bad, the word is Density.Density of a material is defined as "Mass per
unit of volume" by Physics for Scientists and Engineers, by Serway &
Beichner. Mass is defined as "That property of an object that specifies how
much inertia the object has." Therefore by definition two objects with
identical mass as Neil describes will have identical inertia. There fore the
lead keel described will act as the cast iron keel described when we are
refering to inertia and mass. It wouldn't matter if the keel were made of
feathers as long as the mass was identical.
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Sorry, if the weight is the same, the mass will also be the same, assuming
gravity is constant.

There's another word you're looking for, but it eludes me also.


"The Carrolls" wrote in message
...
A lead keel cannot have identical mass to an iron keel. Identical
weight,
but not mass, lead is a denser material.
"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
What a retard Oz is turning out to be.

It's clear the man never even heard of inertia.

He seems to think a lead keel has the same inertia
as a cast iron keel. He doesn't know or remember
the law of physics that states a body in motion
tends to remain in motion and a body at rest tends
to remain at rest.

When attached to a hull a keel is a body at rest
with respect to the hull. A cast iron keel will
stop faster if it hits an immovable object whereas
a lead keel (of identical mass) will stop slower.

It follows that the forces imparted to the hull
are less with a lead keel than a cast iron keel.

I guess Oz never heard of the benefits of crush
zones in automobile engineering that protect the
passengers by slowing the vehicle and passengers
down in not such an abrupt manner.

Simple physics but beyond a New Zealander's
ken.

S.Simon

Oz is sooooo stupid.
 

My apologies, check my earlier response.
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
What a retard Oz is turning out to be.

Its the Ausheimer's.


It's clear the man never even heard of inertia.

He seems to think a lead keel has the same inertia
as a cast iron keel.

And why wouldn't it?

He doesn't know or remember
the law of physics that states a body in motion
tends to remain in motion and a body at rest tends
to remain at rest.

When attached to a hull a keel is a body at rest
with respect to the hull. A cast iron keel will
stop faster if it hits an immovable object whereas
a lead keel (of identical mass) will stop slower.


Why?

It follows that the forces imparted to the hull
are less with a lead keel than a cast iron keel.


Why?

I guess Oz never heard of the benefits of crush
zones in automobile engineering that protect the
passengers by slowing the vehicle and passengers
down in not such an abrupt manner.


How would you quantify that?

Simple physics but beyond a New Zealander's
ken.


Geography is beyond yours.